Press rights showdown in Puyallup, Washington
Student press rights advocates were to make their case tonight in Puyallup, Washington, to speak against the board of education’s decision to strip journalism students of public forum designation.
Based on articles on The News Tribune.com, reporting on oral sex in an issue last spring at Emerald Ridge High School led the board of education to change the editorial policies of the system’s three school news publications. Other links to related stories are here and here.
The superintendent says the classes that produce the newspaper are curricular which gives school officials the right to control. Students, advisers and press rights advocates, including the Washington Journalism Education Association and national journalism education groups disagree.
Students and their supporters argue the system has a long history of their publications being forums and attack the changes as steps leading nowhere except to censorship.
Scholastic journalism education groups nationally oppose the practice of prior review and are watching the board’s actions closely.
Tags: censorship, education, journalism, press rights, prior review, Puyallup, WJEA
It’s hard to say if this decision is unjust, not having the original copy. While censorship is repugnant, so too is irresponsible journalism, and if the story was “lewd,” it violated school policy.
Does anyone know where I can find the original?
Sean: The SPLC has articles at http://splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1813 and http://www.splc.org/report_detail.asp?id=1446&edition=46 . I am trying to find the original article.
Thanks, Jbowen; I’ll look, too!
I have found a copy of the original issue and having it mailed to me. When I get it I will copy it and get it to you, Sean. Thanks for checking.
O.K., now I’m getting a more complete picture. Here’s the “he said, she said” portion:
“The petitioners [youths suing the school and two staff members] argue they expressly requested anonymity in the newspaper and were told by newspaper staff members their names would not be printed. But JagWire staffers told the Student Press Law Center they took extra care to make sure it was OK to publish names, even returning to each source to check wording for accuracy.”
So, it’s hard to say if staffers stepped over the line or if respondents had second thoughts (or third thoughts) too late once parents and peers saw their quotes.
But there are additional, possibly salacious, issues at play here:
“Four pages of that issue were dedicated to the topic of oral sex, with stories ranging from a description of the hormones triggered in oral stimulation to counterpoint columns in which reporters discussed whether it is immoral to engage in the behavior. The students bringing claims shared their personal oral sex experiences in pull quotes displayed prominently in the package.”
Is this journalism, or merely titillation? Add to that the cover, which features a young lady in a neglige with a pencil suggestively held in her mouth and I can see where some community members would be upset.
On the other hand, “Lauren Smith, a member of the JagWire’s editorial board, said a couple of students changed their minds about being quoted even before the issue went to print. The staff respected a girl’s wish to retract her comments and altered a boy’s quote a couple of days before publication at his request.
Gerry LeConte, also an editorial board member, said they considered eliminating names altogether but feared losing the message they wanted to convey in the first place. The newspaper conducted a poll that found one in three students had participated in oral sex, but the district’s sex education curriculum did not address the topic.
“People think the design and the quotes were just to be sensationalistic, and that’s not what they were for. They were so parents couldn’t say, ‘That’s not my kid,’ ” LeConte told the SPLC. “If you put a pull quote that says one in three kids is having oral sex, many, many, many parents will say ‘Well, that’s the bad one third of the students. That’s not my kids.’ And that’s just not the issue.”"
It does sound like the staff attempted responsibility. But the logic seems flawed. Is it educational to prominently feature (or feature at all)quotes about oral sex experiences? Only those few parents wouldn’t be able to live in denial regarding their children; the rest would still say “that’s not my kid.”
Scholastic journalism’s goal is not to embarrass, though that has nothing to do with legality.
But that cover is still troublesome to me . . .
Well, I’ve talked myself in a circle here. But I’ll think more on it and open my trap later!
An interesting twist here is that since the three Puyallup District high school papers have been public forums in practice for decades, the district logically would use that as a defense against any threatened lawsuits. Instead, the district is mandating that the three principals conduct prior review on all student publications prior to going to press. This, of course, sets the district up to be legally responsible for all content, all the time. These poor principals (who are opposed to this new policy, by the way) now must read every page, every ad, of every edition, plus must review yearbook pages (which often number 50-100 at a time) prior to press deadlines. If they don’t, and something slips through, then the district is 100 per cent responsible. How is this logical?
This situation is compounded by the fact that these three publications are among the best in the nation: top state and national awards on a regular basis. One of the advisers was recognized by Dow Jones this year; another is our current Washington Journalism Teacher of the Year. The excellence comes from students being responsible for their work. Of course, students may make judgement errors… and sometimes parents flip out. This is what learning from experience can entail. Should a student journalist, working on an open forum publication, actually get sued in Washington state, there is a $5,000 limit on how much a parent can be held financially responsible for the actions of their minor child. Such an award wouldn’t even cover legal costs. If open forum status is removed, the school district, with it’s deeper pockets, could potentially be held liable for much much more.
I saw they had returned from summer break to prior review status, which may never teach them to be responsible journalists in their own right with “the man” looking over their shoulders.
The school’s stance given the open forum designation is puzzling. And I also agree with your “learning from experience” idea, though those instances are best handled proactively, as it appears the editorial staff attempted to do.
I’m going to do some more digging on this one. What a great learning opportunity for my students.