Another national voice on student expression

This opinion piece from the American Press Institute does a good job of explaining the differences between legislation in Washington state and in Kansas. In Washington, the bill would give final authority to publish legal speech to students. In Kansas, the bill would mandate approval by an appointed board of review. Kansas already has a free press law for students. A snippet:

The debate in statehouses and elsewhere ought to be about providing increased opportunities for education, information -- and perhaps even a bit of inspiration -- to student journalists, rather than getting bogged down in already-futile exchanges over regulation.

Students will express themselves in some fashion regardless of what parents, lawmakers, school officials or others decide. The focus should be on providing funds and staff to ensure student journalism is made an integral, effective part of the educational experience.

The alternative won't guarantee either control or sensibility. More likely it will marginalize student voices and send them increasingly to unregulated and unsupervised communication methods - the Web and social-networking sites like Facebook, MySpace and YouTube with their ever-growing number of unregulated imitators and innovators.

Gene Policinski of the First Amendment Center wrote the above passage as part of his guest editorial, and the rest is worth a read also. Policinski's words are so important. They help raise the awareness and understanding of this important issue.

It's clear through editorials like the one printed in The Seattle Times a couple weeks ago that there are many, many professional journalists who would easily trade away student rights for the perceived superiority of their own jobs. We must work to change that perspective. The commercial media do not operate under the same set of standards of ownership as the public media do. And students are not agents of the state, nor should they have to submit their ideas for approval by school government officials.

Thank you, Mr. Policinski, for your important opinion piece. May more follow in similar forums.

-- Wenatchee, Wash.

USA Today supports student free speech

USA Today's editorial page had a strong editorial this morning supporting student freedom of expression. The headline said "Schools fail Free Speech 101." The secondary headline said "Muzzling student publications sends the wrong message.”

The editorial said, "A major function of schools is to prepare students for life in a democracy. And one of the cornerstones of democracy is the free exchange of ideas. Lessons in bowing to life under censorship shouldn't be part of the curriculum." The editorial specifically mentions the legislation in Washington state, and encourages legislators to enact the bill.

The opposing piece contains so many ironic statements from the school principal (from Grandview, Wash.). It’s interesting to see the fallacious logic. In one particularly weak example, the principal says that students should not be able to offer written expression about a fellow teen's suicide because it might encourage copycat suicides and only adults are mature enough to be able to see that. Of course, a rational person can see that writing about a suicide won't cause more suicides. There are a few logical reasons that make good arguments for the principal's position. Too bad she did not mention many of them.

The national media have done a great job of highlighting this important issue. It's the state media that have, with few exceptions, missed the target on why this is important to the future of democracy but also to the future of their own industry. Meanwhile, the bill is still in the House Rules Committee, and it's not known whether it will move anytime soon.

-- Wenatchee, Wash.

Student Free Press Update

The politics section of the blogs at The Seattle Times has a nice little write up over this week's Times editorial about the Washington student free press bill in the Legislature. There's a link to Mark Goodman's SPLC letter, which appeared in full via Romenesko at Poynter.

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/davidpostman/

Still no letters printed or online in The Times as of Sunday (the P-I had one Thursday but not in response to any story, just a general support letter). You can read and/or post comments to the blog, though. The comments represent an interesting cross-section of rants (and a couple well-reasoned ones from me and colleagues).

Meanwhile, on Saturday, The News Tribune of Tacoma co-sponsored a forum on student free press rights. Read a story about the event.

UPDATE to the Update: The Daily, the newspaper at the University of Washington, has an article about HB 1307 moving from the House Judiciary Committee to the Rules Committee. The article quotes my testimony from teh Jan. 26 hearing in Olympia.

-- Wenatchee, Wash.

Making youngsters hate the media

As part of the debate about House Bill 1307, a bill in the Washington Legislature which would protect the free speech and press rights of high school and college students, The Seattle Times published an editorial on Feb. 1 that demonstrated a true misunderstanding of the facts involved in the situation. The Times suggested, among other things, that a compromise in the bill could be reached by having the teacher, not the school administrator, serve as the person who has the "final say" as to what gets printed. That's absurd. It would only increase the pressure on students and teachers to "tow the line" because it would be a rare teacher who would have the confidence to encourage students when his or her own neck is on the line. Why can't we just trust the students to make a good decision once we have taught them the law?

Unfortunately, The Times' editorial board represents the exact same thinking we have seen from newspapers in Yakima, in Walla Walla, in Vancouver and in other people all over the state. The sad part is, if the commercial media are so unwilling to go to the mat for young people, how will we ever expect average citizens to do so? Yet, many individuals who work in schools, individual parents and certainly individual students immediately grasp what The Times could not: students at schools can be trusted with full rights and, in fact, this law is needed because some school administrators create climates in their schools where the only acceptable speech or writing is that does not embarrass or criticize the school.

Read The Seattle Times editorial.

Then, a wonderfully articulate response from Mark Goodman, the director of the Student Press Law Center in Arlington, Va., posted to an e-mail discussion list for journalism educators to which I subscribe.

By Mark Goodman, Executive Director
Student Press Law Center

Why young people hate the media

A big part of our job here at the Student Press Law Center is helping young people understand and appreciate the role of the media in a free society and the importance of press freedom to all people. That job has never been more of a challenge than it is today for two reasons. First, school censorship of the student press has become so institutionalized in many communities that a generation of young people believe it's only appropriate that government officials dictate what the public may read, watch or hear.

But the other reason is one that's especially galling to us, given our organization's mission: time and again, young people see a commercial news media that believes the First Amendment should only be big enough to cover its own behind and that press freedom really isn't that important unless it is somehow the direct beneficiary of its protection. (There are exceptions, especially among the organizations of professional journalists and a growing group of individual reporters and editors who understand that the future of a free press is in the hands of the next generation. But on editorial pages around the country, reading of support for student voices is the rare exception, not the rule.)

Today, the Seattle Times published a mind-bogglingly naïve editorial opposing a bill pending before the Washington legislature that would provide basic (and minimal) free press protections to public high school and college journalists. The bill proposed in Washington is similar to those that have been enacted in six other states, none of which have experienced the dire educational consequences the Times editorial suggests will result. (Ask those involved in high school education in Iowa, for example, whether student journalism has suffered since their student free expression law was enacted in 1989. They will tell you just the opposite; it's only grown stronger because students and school administrators have a clear definition of their legal rights and responsibilities.)

Yet the Times believes the bill would not allow journalism teachers to teach "editorial judgment," implying that the only way to do that is from censorship by a school official. The Times solution: make the adviser the censor, the one who has the final say over the content of the publication. It's a system reminiscent of the old Soviet Union; let the government appoint the censors (who of course are paid by the government and whose jobs depend on keeping their government employers happy) and suddenly the censorship isn't a problem any more, it's "editing."

The irony, of course, is that in Washington state (and everywhere else), high school journalism teachers are the biggest proponents of these student free expression laws. (Both the Washington Journalism Education Association and the state's largest teachers' union, the Washington Education Association, endorsed the bill.) The educators on the front lines of teaching journalism in American schools don't want to be determining the content of their students' publications; they want to teach and advise. They know that the only way they can instill the true meaning of the First Amendment in the hearts of young Americans is to teach them by example what a free press and free expression means. And they also know that if they are the ones responsible for making content decisions, their jobs will be on the line if they let anything that reflects negatively on the school see the light of day, no matter how factually accurate and journalistically sound it might be. The Seattle Times editorial board could not be bothered with those facts.

So if I am one of the more than 100 young people who packed a hearing room of the legislature last week to show their support for the bill (or the thousands of their peers who couldn't get out of school but were there in spirit), what do I make of this? Once again, the commercial news media has betrayed us. They are desperate for us as readers to stop the precipitous decline in circulation of their publications, but they can't be bothered to consider our perspective on the issues that matter to us most and that are directly related to the future of their profession.

Our work at the Student Press Law Center got harder today. But we aren't giving up. With the support of many allies in the commercial media and education, we will continue our efforts to help high school and college students understand that a free press is really as important as the First Amendment suggests. Too bad the Seattle Times did the exact opposite.

I've also seen letters of response from the Washington Journalism Education Association, the Journalism Education Association and the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

-- Wenatchee, Wash.

Inspirational day in Olympia

It was a chilly morning in Olympia, Wash., today when dozens of journalists, school teachers, interest parties and students attended an 8 a.m. hearing of the state House Judiciary Committee regarding HB 1307, the free student press bill. Staff had to open the overflow area of the hearing room to accommodate the crowd, which included teachers and students from several Washington state schools. I estimated about 40 high school students in addition to several dozen educators, college and university students, professional journalists and others. This hearing preceded one for the proposed reporter shield law.

The bill info is available here. An audio file of the hearing is available from the TV Washington Web site.

I was among the first four citizens to speak in favor of the bill, and I sat next to Ken Bunting, associate publisher of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, who was an articulate and reasoned voice on behalf of the student press. In Friday morning's P-I, Bunting laid out the case expertly.

My testimony is about 15 minutes into the audio, in case you just wanted to listen to me. Others were more compelling, but I had been designated because supporters knew I would be present and could have something reasonably helpful to contribute.

Three other Washington advisers testified. Students from at least five schools testified, sharing their experiences and passion for journalism. The hearing continued for almost 90 minutes, far longer than we expected. The chair was very accommodating and so enthusiastic about the students present. In fact, the hearing itself was an affirmation for student empowerment. One adult speaker even deferred his time because he said he found the student voices so compelling.

It is January, a time in Washington state usually known for thick clouds and gray days. But as we left the state capital today, the sun was shining. It was an inspirational day, one where the best of scholastic journalism shone bright, too.

I'll keep posting on the progress of this important legislation.

One highlight for me personally was the fact that my suit fits me again. I was a bit nervous when I tried it on a few days ago and it was, well, snug around the waist. Thankfully I think that was just the effects of a huge dinner, and I had no problems at all for Friday's suit-wearing. I looked darn good if I say so myself.

-- Wenatchee, Wash.