Censorship in other high schools

Full ViewCensorship at Stevenson HS



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This morning, student editors of The Statesman at Stevenson High School are scheduled to meet with the superintendent to discuss the censorship that occurred there last week. This is a story that involves an "exemplary" school and therefore can have profound implications far beyond a local community. This is the second censorship this year at Stevenson, the first resulting in the loss of a distinguished adviser.





Our high hopes go to the courageous students who are challenging arbitrary censorship. The JEA, other scholastic journalism organizations, the professional news media, parents and other members of the school community MUST HOLD SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS ACCOUNTABLE for their censorship decisions. WE MUST BE PERSISTENT. OUR PROFESSIONAL NEWS MEDIA BRETHREN MUST BE PERSISTENT. Teachers, parents, board members and others must rally to discover exactly what's happening in the Stevenson school district. They should demand that prior review be lifted and student autonomy within the parameters of Tinker be restored.





My reflection is lengthy, but I wanted to present a detailed response to Stevenson administrators. Thanks for your patience.


Randy Swikle

JEA State Director, Illinois

Johnsburg, IL 60051

Censorship at Stevenson High School

Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Ill., has long boasted a national reputation as a premier school, but continuing incidents of censorship, incredibility and unaccountability are baffling and jeopardize the school’s claim of superiority. Nationwide, more and more are associating Stevenson High School with a suppressive word: CENSORSHIP. The school administration is urged to reevaluate its actions of prior review and prior restraint of The Statesman, national award-winning student newspaper, and to pursue a course that will heighten student and teacher morale, inspire intrinsic motivation, cultivate free and responsible student news media and restore confidence in the decision-making of school officials.



CENSORSHIP



Last winter, administrators challenged The Statesman’s coverage of several topics as being unbalanced, improper and unprofessional. Longtime adviser and renowned journalism educator Barb Thill was publicly rebuked, disrespected and advised to keep quiet. Student journalists, who were chief stakeholders in the controversy, said they felt bullied and largely left out of the loop by administrators who seemed to prefer clout over collaboration as the strategy for resolution. To increase its control of the student press, administrators imposed a policy of prior review and later divided The Statesman staff into two classes with two different journalism teachers. Administrators gave no convincing rationale for how separating the student staff is in the best interests of efficient communication and exemplary education.



The latest censorship of The Statesman occurred when school officials prohibited distribution of the Nov. 20, 2009, issue. An unattributed news release printed under the school seal cited the following reasons for the censorship:



(1) Reporters used anonymous sources discussing alleged illegal activity.



(2) The principle of in loco parentis obliges the school to “report such activity to … parents, and possibly, legal authorities.”



(3) The content of the newspaper did not meet “the curriculum standards laid out by the journalism teachers at the beginning of the school year.”



No mention was made of articles on teen pregnancy and shoplifting, which editor Pam Selman said also factored into the censorship. No compelling evidence was presented to show that the censorship was anything more than arbitrary suppression of protected student expression. The release said the censorship was “not because the subject matter of certain articles was sensitive or deemed harmful to the school’s reputation.” Ironically, the author of the release was left anonymous.



INCREDIBILITY





In measuring credibility, one may weigh different perspectives alongside undisputed facts, logic and transparency to reach more objective judgments.



In last winter’s censorship, administrators denounced the quality of student reporting in several articles, most notably in coverage of “hooking up,” a trend among teenagers to engage in sexual encounters with no commitments attached. The Chicago Tribune, the Daily Herald, other news media, professional journalists and journalism educators around the country took issue with Stevenson administrators and praised the student coverage as balanced, responsible and in the best interests of the school community. Who can better judge the quality of journalistic works and ethics than expert professionals in the news media and respected journalism educators?



Additionally, administrators publicly questioned the competence of adviser Barb Thill, despite her exemplary reputation, which is fortified by a long list of state and national awards for her achievements as a journalism educator. Most recently, Ms. Thill received the “Peter Algeld Award” from the McCormick Freedom Project and the “Courage in Student Press Award” from the Student Press Law Center. Leaders in both the scholastic and the professional press joined the civic and First Amendment organizations in praising Ms. Thill for not cowering to those who prioritize PR image above the most basic mission of education—enlightenment. As Mark Goodman, Knight Chair in Scholastic Journalism, Center for Scholastic Journalism at Kent State University’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication, said in a statement: “Her school cared more about its image than the truth. All of the students who are missing her training are the ones who ultimately suffer. Her courage and dedication has affected thousands of young people over the course of her career.”



When administrators imposed a policy of prior review upon The Statesman as a result of its “hooking up” coverage, superintendent Eric Twadell announced at a school board meeting the policy would be only temporary. Today, almost nine months later, the policy is still in effect, which raises a question regarding not only credibility but also the degree of trust and respect school leaders show toward The Statesman, which is honored by scholastic journalism organizations as one of the best student newspapers in the nation.



In the current censorship, Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Virginia-based Student Press Law Center, chastised Stevenson administrators for their suppression of free speech. “It is irresponsible to withhold this information so they can protect their fantasy image of Stevenson as a place where no one has ever gotten pregnant or shoplifted,” he said.



In the Stevenson press release, two anonymous faculty advisers were alleged to be the people who determined “that an article featuring anonymous sources discussing alleged illegal activity was not fit for print.” That “assignment of accountability” is in sharp contrast with media reports that “… administrators on the paper’s review board warned editor Pam Selman, a senior, not to submit a front-page story by senior managing editor Evan Ribot about students in the National Honor Society and freshmen mentors program.” Media attempts to clarify who initiated the censorship and what role superintendent Eric Twadell may have played went unanswered last Thursday.



In an attempt to justify the censorship, the press release stated these three reasons for the suppression:



(1) “The cloak of anonymity does not guarantee truthful statements from a source.” If the point of that statement was to suggest that the identification of a source guarantees truthful statements, the flawed logic is apparent. News media ethically use anonymous sources to protect citizens from retribution for disclosing information that serves the public interest but can put the source in jeopardy. That is exactly what The Statesman editors were doing, and the Stevenson news release demonstrates the point when it states that if administrators learned the names of the sources, they would be obligated “to report such activity to [students’] parents, and possibly, legal authorities.” The student journalists knew their sources and judged their testimony to be sincere. Readers are capable of judging the credibility of the anonymous sources for themselves.



(2) “Stevenson is legally bound by the principle of in loco parentis—acting in place of the parent.” The application of that rationale is rejected by at least two U.S. Supreme Court Justices who supported school censorship in Morse v. Frederick (2007). Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, wrote in concurrence with the Court’s opinion: “The public schools are invaluable and beneficent institutions, but they are, after all, organs of the State. When public school authorities regulate student speech, they act as agents of the State; they do not stand in the shoes of the students’ parents. It is a dangerous fiction to pretend that parents simply delegate their authority—including their authority to determine what their children may say and hear—to public school authorities. It is even more dangerous to assume that such a delegation of authority somehow strips public school authorities of their status as agents of the State. Most parents, realistically, have no choice but to send their children to a public school and little ability to influence what occurs in the school. It is therefore wrong to treat public school officials, for purposes relevant to the First Amendment, as if they were private, nongovernmental actors standing in loco parentis.”



(3) “The Statesman’s publication was delayed because [curriculum standards] were not being met to the satisfaction of the journalism teachers and the director of the Communication Arts Division, and not because the subject matter of certain articles was sensitive or deemed harmful to the school’s reputation.” The Stevenson press release did not provide specific, convincing evidence that its “curriculum standards” argument is anything more than self-serving rationale invented to cloak another, covert purpose for the censorship. The accusation that The Statesman fails to meet high standards is outrageous in light of its long history as one of the nation’s best student newspapers. It has repeatedly won the National Scholastic Press Association’s Pacemaker Award, known as the Pulitzer Prize of scholastic journalism. Its staff has won countless awards for excellence in writing and reporting. Stevenson administrators must show they are not setting arbitrary standards and making arbitrary evaluations that serve their own agenda at the expense of the best interests of learners, the school community and the civic mission of school. Furthermore, if The Statesman serves by policy or practice as a public forum, which all evidence supports that it does, it falls under the jurisdiction of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., a U.S. Supreme Court case that defines parameters within which students may control the content of their student newspaper. The administration’s “curriculum standards” argument clearly does not justify censorship under Tinker. Consider also that in its attempt to micromanage the content of The Statesman, the administration jeopardizes the newspaper’s standing in the competitive dimension of scholastic journalism. How can the newspaper be evaluated as student work when its content is inappropriately influenced by the intervention of school officials? For yet another consideration, the administration’s “curriculum standards” argument is likely discriminatory when used to deny access to a public forum by students who may be well-intentioned but who lack superior communication skills, who disseminate controversial and unpopular views, who challenge school policies/decisions/actions, who advocate a single rather than a balanced view and who simply may be wrong. (The First Amendment protects a person’s right to be wrong as well as right.) Finally, when administrators require prior review to edit, micromanage and unjustly censor a student publication, they deny student autonomy and steal responsibility that belongs to the students. Are the actions of Stevenson administrators teaching responsibility or obedience?



UNACCOUNTABILITY



The Stevenson administration properly holds the student newspaper staff accountable for its actions. Is the administration willing to allow the students to hold them—the administrators—accountable too? Is every stakeholder in a school community allowed to hold all other stakeholders accountable?



Where is the accountability of administrators? Why are administrators keeping their distance, refusing to meet with media and citizens to answer direct questions about their censorship practices and roles? Why are they pointing to the two advisers as originating the censorship—subordinates who may feel intimidated by the attitudes of their supervisors? Does evidence exist that officials are being vague, inaccessible, arbitrary, autocratic and intimidating? Does evidence exist of effective partnership, mutual respect and collaboration fueled by rationale rather than by rank?



The press release’s ambiguous statement, “A collaborative decision was made by the leaders of the journalism program to delay the issue’s publication … ,” suggests to some that students may have participated in the decision to spike their newspaper. Did they? Were they even consulted before the censorship decision was made? Or, more pointedly, does the statement really mean, “Administrators decided to censor.”?



The press release repeats it ambiguity: “… the journalism program wisely decided to delay the paper’s publication … .” Who decided to delay publication? Once again, accountability is cloaked behind ambiguity.



What evidence exists that the administration truly has been proactive in building rapport with student journalists and supporting their efforts and the notion of free and responsible student news media? Does the administration and school board continue to recognize The Statesman as a public forum? What evidence exists that trust, student empowerment and collaboration trump bullying, intimidation and clout as the administration’s strategies for influencing students? How accessible and interactive are the superintendent and principal to/with students? Do top school authorities descend their pedestals, visit the classroom and speak at eye level with students?



A hundred other accountability questions need to be asked, not just to administrators but to faculty advisers and student journalists as well. Accountability requires candid questions and complete answers. Stevenson High School has a serious problem that, more than tarnishing its reputation, is demoralizing students, teachers and other members of the community. Anyone who denies there is a profound problem is too caught up in school cosmetics when candor and collaboration should rule the day.



A PHILOSOPHICAL ATTITUDE



Offered because it seems relevant, this selection from Schools of Fish! (Welcome Back to the Reason You Became an Educator):



Control vs. Commitment



“In 1977, psychologist Carl Rogers described the traditional classroom: ‘The teachers are the possessors of knowledge, the students the expected recipients; the teachers are the possessors of power, the students the ones who obey.’



“We adults spend a lot of time in school teaching students about the strengths of democracy: freedom, choice, and responsibility. We tend to spend less time providing them opportunities to actually practice those skills—the same skills they need to become successful citizens and parents. As the poet John Keats noted, ‘Nothing ever becomes real until it is experienced.’



“‘It seems to be an oxymoron,’ researchers Mary McCaslin and Thomas L. Good note, ‘a curriculum that urges problem-solving and critical thinking and a management system that requires compliance and narrow obedience.’



“This strategy of showing students ‘who’s boss’ often forces them to choose between being robots or rebels. Some kids withdraw from academic participation altogether. Others negotiate a live and let-live relationship where they agree not to disrupt the classroom as long as they are left alone. Even high achievers sometimes join in text-burning parties at the end of the year or use words like ‘escape’ to describe their feelings about school.



“Many educators continue to push control because it was the way they were taught. When pressed, however, these same teachers admit that this approach is as unsatisfying as when they were students. It is no more fun to control than to be controlled.



“So how much control should a teacher give students? One way to start is to ask yourself, as noted author Alfie Kohn suggests, ‘What do you want your students to be like, long after they’ve left you?’ Most of us would say caring, responsible, independent, and creative—not docile, compliant, and unquestioning.



“It’s helpful to think about roles, not just rules. Some teachers use the FISH! philosophy to spark discussion about what each member of the classroom wants the culture to be, and the role each plays in creating such a place. These discussions are the basis of a social contract in which each person is accountable to everyone else for his or her behavior. As teacher Jason Pelowski says, ‘It’s not my control. It’s not their control. It’s our control.’ In this environment the FISH! principles are important life skills to work on, not rules to work against.



“It’s often as frightening for students to accept control for their part in the classroom as it is for teachers to give them the opportunity. Having been given little practice in making such choices, they don’t always know how to respond. But students don’t have to become totally independent overnight; we can help them learn gradually, as with math or any other subject.



“There is the chance that, given the choice, kids will at times select the opposite response of the one we want. More often than not, however, with accountability, patience,, and respect, chances are kids will arrive at the same place we’d like them to be. And when they get there, they’ll be even more committed to their choice because they made it, even if the path wasn’t always a straight line.



“There may be times, Kohn admits, when teachers need students to just do what they say—period. But, he comments, students are more ‘apt to trust … and go along if blind obedience is the exception rather than the rule.’”



CALL FOR DIALOGUE



Finally, would superintendent Eric Twadell, principal Janet Gonzalez, school board president Bruce Lubin and director of communication arts Joseph Flanagan be willing to participate in a public, round-table discussion with journalism teachers Matt Lockowitz and Lisa Lukens, student editors Pam Selman and Evan Ribot, and a member of the Journalism Education Association who advocates for free and responsible student news media to discuss the school district’s philosophy and practices regarding scholastic journalism? How better can accountability be safeguarded, transparency secured and the principles of democracy inculcated? Say the word, and we can make it happen.



Stevenson High School is a dynamic educational institution with good, talented people who are pursuing excellence. The school administration is sincere in its desire to sustain an exemplary environment of quality teaching and learning. However, the words “Stevenson High School” are becoming synonymous with the words “arbitrary censorship,” and that is a tag for no educational institution welcomes.



Let’s make lemonade.



Signed,



Randy Swikle



State Director (Illinois), Journalism Education Association



5605 N. Woodland Dr.



McHenry, IL 60051



H: 847-497-3651



C: 847-656-6735



E-mail: randyswikle@comcast.net



To unsubscribe to this listserv, send a message to listserv@listserv.kent.edu. In the message space simply type SIGNOFF JEAHELP