Turkeys in the news tomorrow may not be just on people’s plates.

Lately, some have been dressed as administrators at Stevenson High in Lincolnshire, Illinois.

First, school officials’ objections held up the paper’s initial release. Then they forced journalism students to remove  several stories and several pages from the latest issue.

Next, administrators demanded the issue run despite student objections. According to information in the Daily Herald and Chicago Tribune, administrators wouldn’t allow students to remove their bylines from the stories and threatened to fail the student journalists if they did not do as told.

Prior review, administrators said last year when a previous dispute occurred, would only last a short time.

They were right about one thing. Review is now prior restraint of the least educationally defensible kind.

Executive director of the Student Press Law center, Frank LoMonte, called administrative actions a confession that they had lied.

“Stevenson’s conduct today is a confession that its administrators lied when they claimed in a press release last week that they had problems with only one story in the Statesman,” he said. “We trust that the school board will immediately investigate the source of this intentionally false public statement and will remove any employee who played a role in distributing it.

LoMonte also praised student editors.

“Student editors have dealt with Stevenson in an honest, professional and restrained manner, attempting to work out a peaceful resolution. Their reward for it was a sucker-punch in the gut. To threaten the highest-achieving students in the school with flunking journalism, potentially endangering their college careers, simply confirms that Stevenson puts its image ahead of the well-being of its students. When a school tries this hard to silence student journalism, the public should start asking hard questions about what is going on at Stevenson High School that its administrators are so desperate to conceal.”

This Thanksgiving the communities that send their students to Stevenson definitely may want to be thinking of ways to deal with these leftover turkeys.

For related reporting and coverage, go here, here, here and here.

It really must be the season of the witch.

The Student Press Law Center today tweeted yearbook censorship in a Summerville, Georgia, high school. According to a WRCB-TV report, the new principal censored the fall-released yearbook prepared by students and their now retired adviser last spring.

His target: four pages of shirtless boys playing basketball.

The pages were cut from the book. Slashed, leaving ragged edges, tattered memories.

The reason:  ”Inadvertently,” WRCB-TV quoted the new principal, “ the school administration did not approve the 2008 -2009 yearbook in its entirety; there were several photographs that did not reflect an appropriate image of the school or our community. The pages which contained the photos were removed.” The principal declined further comment.

If that does not bring a chill, consider that other photos of boys without shirts remain in the yearbook.

The system’s superintendent told the television station the principal “is trying to improve the image of the school, and the academic programs of the school. He has it headed in the right direction.”

It is a direction the former adviser does not approve.

In a video section of the report the retired adviser said he was very disappointed with the decision to mutilate the yearbook.

” There was absolutely nothing inappropriate about the pages that were cut from the book,” the adviser of 27 years was quoted on the video. “I am offended by the lack of regard shown for the students pictured on those page, the students who worked on the yearbook staff last year, and most of all, the students who purchased the yearbook.”

So say we all.

Move over Michael Myers. There is a new slasher in town and, frighteningly enough, another tale of horror in yet another town.

All week I’ve heard plans for creepy costume parties, haunted house visits and horror film marathons. But as Halloween weekend approaches, there’s something much scarier on my mind.

It’s scary how many media staffs and their advisers are under fire right now for doing exactly what they set out to do: report on issues of impact and interest to their students. The current situation at Timberland High School in Wentzville, Mo. is just one example of many. Stories of little consequence, such as the homecoming court or club happenings, rarely draw attention. But the ones that matter — the ones that have potential to help students — come under fire at an alarming rate, despite thorough research, credible sources and top-notch student reporting.

It’s scary when kids grapple with these big issues and how to cover them well. But it’s even scarier when they don’t. Good journalism — and the whole part about critical thinking, student leadership and free expression — stops when kids decide to censor themselves.

All too often I hear my kids during staff brainstorming sessions say things like, “People would freak out if we covered that,” or “[Insert administrator names] would give us a really hard time if we did that.” Despite frequent discussion of media law and a dissection of the ed code, I still hear, “We can’t do that, can we?”

In most cases, they can. And in many cases, they should. It’s easy to see why kids might be inclined to shy away from the good stories, the real stories. After all, many advisers share updates in class of programs facing censorship and use these as teachable moments. We read the controversial articles, discuss the situations and follow the stories over an extended period of time. Kids are interested and engage in meaningful discussion, but I realized lately that they might not be taking away the message we think we’re sending. Do our students come away inspired and empowered, or are they afraid of censorship, administrative retaliation or the risk of losing a beloved adviser?

Scary possibilities, to be sure.

We can combat self-censorship with a few simple strategies:

(1) Continue to expose students to outstanding journalism, both from students and from the pros. Read it, discuss it, analyze it. Nothing beats an important story done well.

(2) When students begin to talk themselves out of a sensitive story topic, encourage them to revisit your mission statement and/or editorial policies. Teach students to weigh the options: how many readers might be helped or touched by this story? What’s the potential for good here? How far might this story reach?

(3) Get outside your school bubble. You know your school community, yes, but have you looked at how other student media have covered similar stories? Are others in your city, state, region affected by the same topics? Is there an opportunity to learn from the experience of others? Collaborate?

(4) Point to a wide variety of resources so students have support. When students feel confident in their research and reporting skills, they’re confident tackling bigger stories. Establish a team-oriented staff culture so that students have peers willing to help with research and interviewing. Good student journalists know how much work is involved in getting a story right; they might talk themselves out of tackling the topic because they know a sensitive story often involves extra effort. Again, work together.

(5) Make sure students understand how to utilize expert assistance from the SPLC and feel comfortable doing so. Consider role-playing sample scenarios in class. Encourage student editors to create a plan in the event that a situation arises. It’s like a fire drill — we don’t expect to be in a fire but we practice the drill and know how to call 911 if we need to. Then we’re free to go about our daily lives and focus on what matters.

If staffers have a plan in place, covering a potentially controversial subject doesn’t seem so scary.

Sarah Nichols, MJE

… When will it end?

At least three more recent situations should make one think about the educational validity of prior review:

• One, in Missouri, concerns a story on tattoos. It also led to students changing the content of their paper.

• The second, in Ohio, concerns an obituary and photo. According to the Student Press Law Center, the principal said she knew it was censorship and did not care.

• The third concerns a principal changing quotes while reviewing. Hopefully, we will have more information on this soon.

Of course, some of these don’t involve just review. Review leads to restraint, without consideration of the education implications.

When will it end?

When we agree it has no educational value and convince our various communities to no longer support its use.

As much as we don’t want to see it or accept it, the number of student media being restrained grows rapidly.

For instance:

• In Boonville, Mo, the superintendent stopped distribution of The Pirate Press reportedly because the paper had not been reviewed as it was supposed to be. Coverage in the local paper did not report reasons for the stoppage in its first article. Look for an update soon.

• In Arizona, former student journalists are pursuing legal action in an attempt to continue fighting censorship of their high school’s newspaper.

• In Oregon, an student editorial on a community project so angered a former school board member he threatened the adviser and administrators now require all articles, including editorials, to be bylined.

If you are aware of more instance like these, please let us know using this blog’s comments or contact the SPLC or JEA’s Scholastic Press Rights Commission.

The more we know about censorship and its ally prior review, the more we help each other to fight them.

By Russell Hickey

When the Washington Post recently announced new rules for the use of social media by editors and staff, it was met with some criticism.  Last week, Howard Kurtz chronicled the reactions – both negative and positive.

The full-text announcement sent to the Post staff was reprinted by paidContent.

The policy behind the guidelines is understandable – journalists should remember that they are always journalists and should do nothing that would undermine their credibility or question their impartiality.  Unfortunately, social networking sites, like Twitter, are prone off-the-cuff, spur-of-the moment, out-of-context remarks.  Even following or friending certain people or organizations could suggest a bias that can undermine a reporter.

For the high school journalism student, the consequences of social networking sites may not be top of mind.  This could have dire consequences if an administrator is looking for a reason to reign in control of a high school publication.

To be certain, non-school sponsored social networking sites are outside the reach of school administrators.  Careless use of social networking sites by newspaper editors and staff, however, could provide ammunition for administrators seeking reason for prior review.  Thus, it is critical for student press advisors to get ahead of the curve and help encourage students to use some foresight.

The Student Press Law Center’s “Guide to Hazelwood” offers a “Fighting censorship checklist.”  The first item on the checklist is to practice sound journalism – which includes avoiding any appearance of bias.

It behooves students and advisers to think through these issues and potentially adverse impact that careless use of social media could have on their student publication.  A well-thought out policy for the use of social networking sites by newspaper editors and staff can be a critical demonstration of credibility.

Russell has a Bachelor’s of Journalism from the University of Missouri and a Juris Doctor from the University of Kansas, where he completed the Media, Law and Policy Certificate Program.  He currently is a Senior Claims Specialist for AXIS Pro, a Errors & Omissions Insurance provider for media companies.

“What’s the legal problem you fear the most?” That’s always the first writing assignment for JMC47003, the Teaching High School Journalism class at Kent State. Students are Integrated Language Arts majors….and most would rather die than teach journalism. The class is a requirement, but they see only Shakespeare and poetry in their futures.

So what DOES worry them?

Generally, their topics fall into one of three categories: libel or copyright violation or censorship. If the criteria for worrying is based on statistics, they don’t need to worry about about defamation, but the other two are worth their concern.

Libel cases don’t happen that often, according to the Student Press Law Center. In fact, those that even make it to court are virtually nonexistent when it comes to high school media. Besides, so many red flags could alert students — and advisers — to defamation. Are you saying something BAD about someone? Is it true? Does it say the person did something illegal? Why do readers need to know? That’s an ethical question, but it’s a good one nonetheless.

Copyright violation is pretty easy to combat, too, especially after checking the SPLC Web site. You didn’t take the photo? Do you have written permission to use it? No? Better not. Yes, some items come under the heading of fair use, but that’s not too common, and why not push your own photographers to localize in the first place?

However, censorship and its cousin prior review aren’t so easy to combat. Sure, if you live in one of the “anti-Hazelwood” states, you have legislation on your side. And if you have a board-approved policy setting your media up as a forum of student expression, you have some safety there.

But lately even those protections haven’t been so strong. California schools, with the most long-standing AND most recent free expression legislation, have had some issues. Pennsylvania, with its administrative code, has schools under the gun with administrators naming themselves editors. Districts with strong policies have decided to rethink what’s on the books.

So what’s a current or future adviser to do? Is there reason to worry? Current statistics don’t even give us a good glimpse of how pervasive prior review and censorship are. It’s only when a situation hits the media — the principal pulls an article that might make the school look bad or keeps a stack of papers from being distributed — that we find out what’s going on. Then we know, though we don’t know how much student media is routinely reviewed and how many principals “suggest” some topics never reach their audiences.

The second part of the paper my future teachers write focuses on what they would do about this legal issue, either how they would prevent it or react if it happens. Perhaps the best suggestion to them and to others: Keep current on legal issues. Know what protections your state affords. Train your students to understand their rights and responsibilities and to fight for them if someone tries to take them away. Develop allies on the school board, with parents, in the community.

It’s also valuable to develop a good relationship with administrators, which doesn’t mean letting them call all the shots. Be sure they know the student journalists’ mission and how they work on a regular basis. Let them sit in on a good, rousing editorial board meeting where it’s clear the staff discusses and wrangles over topics and angles and doesn’t just publish without thinking. Trust makes a big difference here.

That’s what most of the students in Teaching High School Journalism decide. Legal battles in traditional English classes are rare. The administration doesn’t call those teachers into the office too often. But does their course content have an impact on the whole school or community? How often do they really make a difference?

Bottom line: Wanting to teach Shakespeare or poetry has its merits. However, teaching journalism and advising student media may have potential legal battles but will definitely have an impact.