1. Samantha Karas, Lincoln East
2. Tyler Simmons, Gering
3. Mary Susman,
4. Jim Ficenec,
5. Amy McConnell, Papillion-La
6. Tallie Everswick,
Samantha Karas
Lincoln East High School – Editorial
In China, Facebook is illegal. Blogging is suspect.
In Iran, artwork is burned. Breasts are slashed off sculptures and mannequins. Journalism must be approved by a federal court.
In Putin’s Russia, Kremlin law dictates that 50% of all news stories about Russia must be positive. Minority parties may not appear on television. The United States, when praised, must also be criticized.
Censorship, when it crops up outside of our borders, is no good. Bad. Horrible. Censorship is a violation of democracy—of men’s rights, of women’s rights, of minorities’ rights, of everyone’s rights. It doesn’t matter the political climate or the individual case. We are quick to condemn censorship in all of its ugly incarnations. After all, it’s a form of political coercion.
So why are school principals across the nation claiming censorship as a form of protection?
In Missouri, a student newspaper was pulled for a feature on tattoos. In Illinois, a student paper was censored for its investigative work on student substance abuse. And in Nebraska, a student paper was taken out of circulation for its discussion of teenage sexuality.
School principals cite Supreme Court Case Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier as their right to censor student papers. Hazelwood dictates that most student papers, because they are curriculum-based, may be suspect to censorship if they don’t support the administration’s goals. In many of these cases, Hazelwood rights are defended on the premise that school newspapers have a responsibility to protect their audiences, which range from high school freshmen to parents of the student body. School principals, when not acting on their own gut reactions to newspaper content, respond instead to parent complaints. Controversy abounds.
Parents? I call for a time-out.
Many of these individual cases—dealing with teen drug use, tattoos, anti-abortion ads, and discussions of masturbation—are deemed “too controversial” for school papers. But here’s the real question: is real life “too controversial” for a school paper?
Timberland High School’s Editor-in-Chief, Nikki McGee, had her paper pulled for a photo of a student with a tattoo commemorating a friend who had passed away from cancer. From then on, the school took a more confrontational stance to censorship. Topics were shot down in the discussion stage. “We had kids coming up to us saying they don’t want to read our paper anymore because it’s so bland,” she said, in a recent Student Press Law Center report. “It used to be such a good paper because we tackled some tough topics—not just topics that are extremely controversial, but the tough topics kids talk about.”
Censorship of these “tough topics” to protect students isn’t protecting students at all. Not only are school students not forced to read school newspapers (as an editor-in-chief, I can assure you that most of our students wouldn’t read the paper if forced), but most of them have experienced first-hand these “tough topics”. It’s ridiculous to assume that our students are as innocent or as gullible as school administrators make them out to be.
Students who immediately rush out to get tattoos after reading a school article about the risks and beauty of tattooing?
Students who begin a heroin binge after reading about an addict’s recovery story?
And I’ll challenge you to find a high school student who’s never masturbated. Or never thought about sex.
Of course, there are topics handled inappropriately. Profanity is flung around. Pornography is taken lightly. Jokes are cracked. Feelings are hurt. When student journalists tackle stories they know are going to be controversial, there’s a certain amount of responsibility. They’ve got to be careful. But once these precautions are taken into account, students have a responsibility to write material that their readers need to hear. Not necessarily what they want to hear—they want to hear that they won’t get pregnant if they jump up and down after sex, and that their parents will never figure out how to tell when they’re high. They need to hear that sex is risky business. That drugs are harmful, and yes, everyone can smell what you’ve been smoking. That tattoos are permanent. They need to hear these things that they’ve been hearing all their lives, but in a way that speaks to their experiences. In a way that doesn’t demonize their behaviors.
Taking away that source of information on weak legal grounds robs students of their right to know. “Shielding” students doesn’t protect them—it glamorizes sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll as something mysterious and forbidden. Frank discussion of these topics open students to a world of both perks and consequences. In short, honesty breeds rationalism.
Student papers have a responsibility to be sensitive to their audience. But maturity isn’t about subject matter. It’s about how you discuss that subject matter. School principals and parents need to remember what it was like to be a teenager—to drive fast and sneak out at night. Maybe if they had the same amount of information at their disposal at the Facebook Generation holds, they might have avoided some of their worst mistakes.
Some principals are positive about tough student journalism. But many back down to parents and their own moral biases, instead of letting the student papers’ arguments speak for themselves.
This is America.
In America, we’re allowed to speak. And nine times out of ten, we do it well.
Jim Ficenec A newspaper staff quitting in protest to censorship Actions speak louder than words. When the newspaper staff of Stevenson High SchoolÕs voice was taken away, they had no choice but to take action. While in disagreement with the staff, the Stevenson administration decided not to allow any publication without prior review. This comes after pulling an article on usage of prescription drugs by students. With no voice of their own, the staff felt the only solution was to resign. The civil right we hold most dearly in this country is the preferred position of free speech. This includes no violation on the establishment or free exercise of religion, no false imprisonment for speaking out without actual malice, and, finally, freedom of the press. The purpose of a high school is to educate, and no matter how much you drill the Constitution into a studentÕs head, they havenÕt learned a thing without the right to use its most important provision. So why the censorship? A school must try to maintain an environment ideal for learning. Publicized use of prescription drugs threatens the safe house of high school, where, once inside, everything is sunshine. No drugs here, just innocent knowledge that will mostly be forgotten in a few daysÕ time. Students abusing substances is a direct threat to that fictional sanctuary that exists in the hallways. Unfortunately, we live in the real world. Students drink, smoke and take prescription drugs. WhatÕs the best way to speak out against it? Let the kids talk. The Stevenson administration was wrong to censor the actions of a student publication, and the staff was justified in resignation. As human beings we are created to communicate. We want to be vocal. We want to inform. We want our voice to be heard. And if our voice is taken, we must speak through our actions.
Amy McConnell- Papillion- La Vista South High School
Editorial Writing Prompt 4
The Bill of Rights provides
journalists with the right to produce content without concern for government censorship.
Unfortunately, however, it gives no guidelines as to how journalists should censor
themselves. Censorship is a red-hot word in the world of journalism, but it is also a
necessary one, when looked at in the correct light.
The
only instance in media in which journalists are allowed to state an opinion is in an
editorial or an editorial cartoon. However, because the public sees journalism as a source
for news, those with the job of producing editorialized content have a responsibility to
express their opinions in an ethical and morally acceptable manner. When running an
editorial cartoon concerning a controversial topic, it is the staff’s responsibility
to ensure that there can be no doubt in the minds of the readers what the true message of
the cartoon is.
The
editorial cartoon in question was meant to point out the negative attitude toward
homosexuality present on Notre Dame’s campus, according to its creators. However, the
people in charge, specifically former assistant managing editor Kara King, did not take
the appropriate time to act as a censor to themselves. Had the appropriate measures been
taken, for instance a thorough review of the content from every possible angle, The
Observer would not be in the position in which it finds itself now. Instead, it has lost a
valuable team asset and its reputation as a fair and balanced source of news. It was never
intended that media should be used as a venue to spread hateful or derogatory messages.
The
Observer will not be the only publication to fall victim to this kind of bad press. The
bottom line is that journalists have become spoiled. They take for granted the trust given
to them by the Bill of Rights when they manipulate their right to freedom from government
censorship into a right to freedom from responsible handling of hurtful topics.
This
is not an inevitable occurrence, however. Clean-cut guidelines should be put forth
concerning the necessary steps to be taken before publishing potentially harmful content.
Focus groups should be run, reactions should be judged and consideration of every
consequence should be taken into account. If these guidelines are followed for opinion
pieces with the potential to jeopardize the publication’s credibility, journalists
and publications would most certainly find themselves with their reputations as fair news
sources intact. Controversial content can be, and should be, published. This ability is
what makes journalism a “watch-dog” organization. It keeps society grounded and
responsible for its actions. But journalists should also be “watch-dogs” for
themselves. They have just as much, if not more, responsibility to act in an ethical
manner, as its readers do.
Return to 2010 State Results List