This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication in Toronto, Canada, August 2004.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
[log in to unmask] For an explanation of the subject line, send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Oct 2004)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
************************************************************************
Speaking Up in Class:
A Quantitative Analysis of High School Environments and
Student Attitudes About Free Expression
by
Neil Ralston,
Assistant Professor of Journalism,
225 Kyser Hall
Northwestern State University
Natchitoches, LA 71497
(318) 357-4439
[log in to unmask]
Abstract
More than 1,000 high school graduates were surveyed to determine what
connections, if any, existed between the students' attitudes regarding free
expression and several other variables. Among the findings were that
students were more likely to support free expression if they obtained most
of their news from print media, if they believed they had "total" or "a
lot" of freedom of expression in high school, and if they worked on a
school newspaper.
Speaking Up in Class:
A Quantitative Analysis of High School Environments and
Student Attitudes About Free Expression
by
Neil Ralston,
Assistant Professor of Journalism,
225 Kyser Hall
Northwestern State University
Natchitoches, LA 71497
(318) 357-4439
[log in to unmask]
Speaking Up in Class:
A Quantitative Analysis of High School Environments and Student Attitudes
About Free Expression
5
Speaking Up in Class:
A Quantitative Analysis of High School Environments and
Student Attitudes About Free Expression
Journalists in America depend on the free-speech and free-press
protections in the First Amendment[1] to do their jobs without undue
interference by government. But these protections, as basic as they are to
the American ideal of democracy, cannot continue if the public stops
supporting them. Therefore, journalists have good reason for concern when
studies suggest that public support for these freedoms are weak.[2] In one
study, for example, 42 percent of the respondents of a nationwide survey
said the media have too much freedom to publish what they want, and 42
percent said the press in America has too much freedom.[3]
Journalists sometimes see these surveys as wake-up calls, and they argue
over the reasons for the public's attitude. They talk about the often
sensational nature of news, the political bias sometimes evident in the
press, and the countless other concerns that citizens have about the media.
But journalists typically don't look beyond their own behavior as possible
causes for this public estrangement. Perhaps it is time that they should.
Inasmuch as support for the freedoms in the First Amendment is likely to be
a learned trait, journalists would do well to consider whether Americans'
views about free expression are shaped, at least partly, when they are
impressionable students in school. What do American schools teach children
about the value of free expression? How do schools attempt to teach the
importance of free expression? And do the schools themselves demonstrate
that free expression is a particularly important right in a democratic
society?
Virtually no quantitative research has addressed these questions, but
studies over the years have examined the broader issues of democracy and
civic learning. For example, researchers in a 1951 study surmised that
students had not been taught enough about the values of democracy after
their research showed that high school seniors who had not studied civics
agreed with the Bill of Rights more often than those who had studied
civics.[4] And in 1971 other researchers concluded that students in grades
5 through 9 had not learned principles of free expression because the
subject had been taught as a slogan rather than a value.[5]
More recently researchers have examined civic education in the schools, and
the results have suggested that students are not learning enough about
civic values, freedoms and responsibilities. For example, in November 1999,
the National Assessment of Educational Progress released civics assessments
for grades 4, 8 and 12. The assessments, from a study conducted in 1998,
showed that 31 percent of 4th-graders, 30 percent of 8th-graders and 35
percent of 12th-graders had less than "basic" knowledge of civics. Only 2
percent of 4th- and 8th-graders and 4 percent of 12th-graders had
"advanced" knowledge of civics.[6] And in a more recent study, an
examination of the states' standards regarding civic education determined
that no states have come up with standards for teaching a civic core that
are both comprehensive and teachable in the time schools have to teach.[7]
The reasons for schools to fail to adequately teach democracy and civic
values are varied, of course, but some observers have pointed out that one
possible obstacle exists in the school environment itself. Leming explained
it this way: "It has long been one of the paradoxes of social studies
education, and of all schooling in the United States, that education for
participation in a democratic system of government takes place in schools
and classrooms which themselves are authoritarian and undemocratic."[8]
Brennan voiced a similar view. "Schools cannot expect their students to
learn the lessons of good citizenship when the school authorities
themselves disregard the fundamental principles underpinning our
constitutional freedoms."[9]
And McMasters was blunt, as well. "Teachers, as well as students, check
their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse door. Parental fears,
administrative dictates, curriculum demands and state-imposed standards
crowd out the sort of lessons that prepare young people to fully function
as informed citizens in the real world."[10]
This paradox has not gone unnoticed by researchers who have worked to
determine whether the learning of democratic and civic values may be
affected by the school environment. For example, one researcher found that
when students dealt with controversial topics in class, they were more
likely to have more favorable attitudes about civil liberties.[11] The
results were similar to those of Grossman who had discovered that students
were more tolerant of dissent when controversial discussion was allowed in
the classroom.[12]
The research results have prompted many educators to support open
discussion in classrooms. "Teachers who emphasize analysis and appraisal of
controversial public issues in an 'open' classroom environment, where
students feel free and secure in their expression of ideas and information,
are likely to enhance learning of democratic attitudes, such as political
interest, sense of political efficacy, political trust, and respect for the
rights of others."[13] And in a study on what makes students learn about
their civic rights and responsibilities, two other researchers recommended
not only an open-classroom environment but also high school courses where
teachers encourage debate on controversial topics. "Indeed, the practice of
democracy is often characterized by strong differences and contentious
debate, and its teaching should reflect this reality."[14]
In another study – this one of students' political learning in the
countries of Denmark, England, Germany, the Netherlands and the United
States – the research revealed small positive correlations between open
classrooms and political interest, efficacy and confidence. The study,
however, did not find a relationship between an open climate and support
for free expression.[15] That result seemed to contradict an earlier study
in which the author found a positive correlation between perceptions of an
open climate and support for the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.[16]
The open-classroom argument has prompted some researchers not only to
encourage more open discussions in the classroom but also to increase the
use of extracurricular activities, including student publications, as tools
of civic learning.
"Students learn societal values and the rights and responsibilities of
citizenship through daily life experiences in school, through classroom
encounters in civics and government, and through extracurricular activities
that embody those values. Each part of school life has a role in education
for citizenship."[17]
But the use of student publications as tools of civic learning remain
limited in light of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows administrators
to control student publications, as well as other forms of student
expression, as long as the controls "are reasonably related to legitimate
pedagogical concerns."[18] In 1988, when the ruling was issued, civil
libertarians and journalism groups protested the decision,[19] but many
newspapers supported the court's action, claiming that the school
administrators were simply acting as publishers.[20] What the newspapers
did not address in their editorials and opinion columns, however, was that
the ruling could create the kind of environment in high schools across the
country where students learn that government control of expression is
reasonable in an American democracy.
A few months after the ruling, Knight did address that issue, suggesting
that the Court's decision could deprive high school students of
understanding the role of a free press in society.[21] And more than 10
years later, scholars and journalists remain concerned. Jensen said the
ruling continues to damage student journalists' understanding of their
responsibilities as truthtellers to the public. "Now America's future
journalists are being trained at an early age to acknowledge and acquiesce
to censorship as a function of their profession."[22]
As scholars, journalists and others continue to express concern about the
free-speech environment in high schools and how the control of student
expression may be affecting students' understanding and appreciation of
their First Amendment freedoms, researchers have an opportunity to provide
some answers. So far, attempts to come up with answers have come through
legal argument and anecdotal evidence; virtually no research has attempted
to answer the questions by using quantitative methods. That is where this
study comes in. In analyzing data from more than 1,000 surveys administered
to recent high-school graduates, it attempts to use quantitative research
techniques to address whether students' attitudes regarding their First
Amendment freedoms are affected by their high school environments.
Variables
Other studies examining free-expression attitudes have not looked
specifically at high school environments. Therefore, variables to identify
these environments had to be developed for this study. Some were developed
using survey questions that had appeared in other studies, such as the
State of the First Amendment surveys financed by the Freedom Forum, but
other variables were developed from questions found nowhere else. Here are
the variables and their definitions:
l Attitude regarding free expression. This variable, used as the dependent
variable in this study, was determined by adding the scores of the
students' responses to two questions and a collection of ten
statements.[23] One survey question asked respondents whether they believe
the press has too much freedom; the other question asked respondents
whether they believe Americans have too much freedom of speech. The ten
statements included sentences such as these: "The media should be allowed
to broadcast pictures of nude or partially clothed persons." and "High
school students should be allowed to report controversial issues in their
student newspapers without approval of school authorities." Because
responses to the two questions were coded on a three-point scale and
responses to each of the ten statements coded on a five-point scale, the
responses could not be simply tallied to determine a value for the
variable. Instead, each of the 12 responses was converted to a Z-score and
the Z-scores were tallied to determine a value for the variable.
l The demographic variables of gender, race and income. Age was not used
because there was little variation in the ages of the subjects.
l Media use. A survey question asked respondents to identify which medium
they used to obtain most of their news. The subjects could mark one answer
from the following choices: internet, magazines, newspapers, radio,
television or other sources. In coding the survey answers, the variable was
broken down into print media (newspapers, magazines or internet) or
broadcast media (radio or television). A survey was not used in the data
analysis if more than one choice was checked or if the subject chose "other
sources."
l Location of free-expression education. A survey question asked
respondents to identify where the learned about or discussed the rights of
free speech and/or free press. The respondents mark one or more of the
following answers: civics class, geography class, history class and
journalism class. They also could mark "some other class" and identify the
class, or mark "outside of class" and explain the answer, or put a mark
next to the statement, "I don't recall learning about or discussing these
rights." When responses were coded, they were broken down dichotomously
into those who chose "history class" as one answer and those who did not
choose "history class."
l Institutional control. The students' perceptions of institutional control
were based on their response to the following survey question: "Again,
thinking back on your high school experiences, how much freedom of
expression do you believe you had while in high school?" Their responses
were limited to one of the following choices: "Total freedom," "A lot of
freedom," "Some freedom," "Little freedom" and "No Freedom."
l Balance between freedom and responsibility. This variable is similar to
the variable of "attitude," but unlike "attitude," balance asks respondents
to choose between freedom and responsibility when the two are in conflict.
Clearly, freedom and responsibility often do not conflict with one another,
but it can be expected that support for free expression wanes when such a
conflict does arise. This variable was measured by having the students use
a Likert-like scale to respond to six statements. [24] The statements were
designed to discriminate between respondents who tended to favor free
expression and those who tended to favor responsibility. The responses were
coded by assigning numbers 1 through 5 to the five choices on the scale and
then tallying the six responses to determine a "balance" score for each survey.
l Knowledge of free expression. This variable was determined by having the
respondents choose whether 10 examples of expression, such as burning the
American flag in political protest, were legal or illegal.[25] Each of the
respondents' correct answers was tallied to determine their knowledge score.
l School experiences. These are four variables related to the respondents'
school experiences: whether a respondent attended a public high school,
whether his or her school had a student newspaper, whether any school
newspaper was school-sponsored, and whether a respondent helped produce a
school newspaper. Each of these variables was dichotomous and was based on
answers the respondents provided to each question.
l First Amendment ratification. In obtaining data for this variable,
respondents were provided the text of the First Amendment and asked if they
would ratify it today.
Hypotheses
Using the variables listed above, this study considered the following five
hypotheses:
H1: Among demographic variables, the variables of gender, race and income,
singularly or in combination, should significantly predict student
attitudes regarding free expression.
H2: Variables dealing with sources of information, specifically the medium
that provided respondents with most of their news and the place where
respondents learned about free expression, singularly or in combination,
should significantly predict student attitudes regarding free expression.
H3: Student perception of institutional control, student attitudes
regarding the balance between free expression and responsibility, and
student knowledge of free expression singularly or in combination should
predict student attitudes regarding free expression.
H4: Variables dealing with school experiences – whether a respondent
attended a public high school, whether his or her school had a student
newspaper, whether any school newspaper was school-sponsored, and whether a
respondent helped produce a school newspaper – singularly or in
combination, should significantly predict student attitudes regarding free
expression.
H5: Responses to the ratification question should significantly predict
student attitudes regarding free expression.
Method
Data for this study came from the development and administration of a
six-page questionnaire. A pilot study was used to test the completeness and
clarity of the questions. Revisions to the questionnaire were made based on
the pilot. The revised survey was administered to more than 1,200 incoming
freshmen at a highly selective public liberal-arts university in the
Midwest. The responses were entered into a database, and the data were
analyzed.
The population being surveyed was the 1,497 members of the 1998 incoming
freshman class at Truman State University in Kirksville, Mo. This
population was chosen because it was convenient to the researcher and
because school officials agreed to allow all members of the freshman class
to be surveyed if they so chose. Truman State is a public liberal arts
institution with a relatively low tuition rate. Its student population is
overwhelmingly traditional in the sense that most begin college within a
few months of graduating from high school. The freshman class included 60.6
percent female students and 7.7 percent minority students. Furthermore, the
students' average ACT score was 27.2 and the students' mean high school
grade point average was 3.6.[26]
Most of the questionnaires were administered during Freshman Week, a
six-day period just prior to the start of the fall semester. The week was
intended, in part, to help students adjust to college life. And during that
time, the students were divided into small groups with each group being
taught a Freshman Week course by a college instructor. The questionnaires
that were not administered during Freshman Week were administered the first
two weeks of the fall semester. It was important to limit the
administration of the survey to a brief period at the beginning of a
semester in order to collect the data before the students' attitudes
regarding free expression had a chance to be changed by courses and
experiences in college.
Prior to administering the questionnaires, the Truman State Institutional
Review Board granted permission to use Truman State students as subjects.
In order to administer the surveys in person, rather than by phone or
through the mail, the researcher obtained permission via e-mail or
telephone from the instructors of the sections of the Freshman Week course
and scheduled times to visit their classrooms. In several cases, the
instructors administered the survey instruments themselves. Because the
survey instrument included instructions and there were few instructions for
administrators, no training was required for the survey administrators.
Each survey was individually numbered for accounting purposes, and the
respondents were told verbally and in writing that they were not to put
their names on the surveys. Also, the students were told that their
participation was voluntary. In the classrooms where the surveys were
administered, the surveys were collected as they were completed and placed
in numbered envelopes for accounting purposes.
Surveys were not administered to all freshmen because a few Freshman Week
instructors either declined to participate, or they did not respond to
e-mail requests and phone messages concerning the survey. Also, on
occasion, a student or two was absent from a class when the survey was
administered. Of the 1,255 surveys administered, 33 were not useable. Seven
of these were completed by international students who had not attended
American high schools. Twenty-three surveys were incomplete and three
surveys contained unclear responses.
Because students were not assigned to Freshman Week sections by race,
gender, age, income level or test scores, the 242 students not surveyed
were assumed to be randomly disallowed. It was also assumed that their
responses to the survey would not have differed greatly from the 1,222
students who did adequately complete the survey. Therefore, the results and
conclusions derived from these 1,222 students' responses were assumed to be
indicative of the entire 1998 freshman class. The procedure produced 1,222
usable surveys, but when regression analysis was completed, only 1,005 were
used because 217 respondents had failed to answer one or more questions.
Survey results were entered into a computer database and then analyzed
using the Statistical Program for Social Sciences, commonly referred to as
SPSS.
Findings
Before the hypotheses were tested, correlations were needed in three
instances to demonstrate that a relationship existed among the sets of
questions or statements that were used to determine single variables. For
example, 10 statements about the legality of instances of expression were
used to measure the variable of knowledge. In making the measurement, a
respondent was asked to determine whether each of the statements – such as
criticizing the president in public – represented a legal or illegal act.
The respondent received a point for each correct answer, and the total
number of points out of a possible 10 was used to determine the
respondent's knowledge score. Before the responses to the 10 statements
were used to determine the single variable of knowledge, however, a Pearson
Product Moment correlation procedure was used in an effort to show that
there was a relatively high correlation among the responses. The procedure
did indeed reveal a relatively high correlation.
High correlations also were revealed for two other variables, attitude and
balance between freedom and responsibility. The variable of balance was
measured by combining the responses to three survey questions, but
combining these responses provided a challenge. The responses of two
questions were recorded on three-point Likert-like scales while responses
to the third question were recorded on a five-point scale. These scale
differences meant the responses could not be used to represent one variable
unless the responses were transformed into like scales. Therefore, the
individual responses were changed to Z-scores, and the Z-scores were
averaged to create a combined score that could be used in the correlation.
A relatively high correlation among the responses was revealed, and the
responses were used as the variable of attitude.
The variable of balance between freedom and responsibility was measured by
combining responses to six statements. All six statements used a five-point
scale so the results did not need to be converted to Z-scores. A Pearson
Product Moment correlation procedure revealed a relatively high correlation
among the responses, and the responses were used as the variable of balance.
Once the correlations were completed, the hypotheses were tested through
the use of four backward, stepwise regressions. The results are explained
below.
H1 suggests that among demographic variables, the variables of gender, race
and income, singularly or in combination, should significantly predict
student attitudes regarding free expression. According to the data
analysis, as seen in Table 1, parts of H1 were accepted. The table shows
that the results of the regression were significant at F(3, 1155) = 22.998,
p=.0001 for all three variables combined. The R2 value of .057 indicates
that 5.7 percent of the variance in student attitudes regarding free
expression can be attributed to the variables of gender, race and income
combined. However, the regression also revealed that when taken
individually, only gender and race were significant at p=.0001 and p=.002
respectively. Income was not significant at p=.081.
Table 1
Regression for Demographics as Predictors of Student Attitudes Regarding
Free Expression
__________________________________________________________________
Variable B SE B b p
__________________________________________________________________
Gender -2.812 .381 -.212 .0001
Race -.504 .166 -.087 .002
Income -.402 .230 -.050 .081
__________________________________________________________________
Note: R2 = .057.
Essentially, the analysis shows that males and whites were more likely to
support free expression than were females and non-whites, but income level
was not a predictor of attitude one way or another.
H2 suggests that variables dealing with sources of information,
specifically the medium that provided respondents with most of their news
and the place where respondents learned about free expression, singularly
or in combination, should significantly predict student attitudes regarding
free expression.
Portions of H2 were accepted. Results of the regression for the hypothesis
were significant at F(2,1145)=5.098, p=.006 for the combination of both
independent variables, the medium that provided respondents with most of
their news and the place were respondents learned about free expression.
The R2 value of .009 as displayed in Table 2 shows that only .9 percent of
the variance in student attitudes regarding free expression can be
attributed to the two sources of information.
When taken individually, one variable, the medium that provided respondents
with most of their news, was significant at p=.006. But the second
independent variable, the place where respondents learned about free
expression, was not a significant predictor of student attitude regarding
free expression.
Table 2
Regression for Sources of Information as Predictors of Student Attitude
Regarding Free Expression
__________________________________________________________________
Variable B SE B b p
__________________________________________________________________
Source of News 1.186 .432 .081 .006
Source of Learning -.629 .395 -.047 .112
__________________________________________________________________
Note: R2 = .009.
Essentially, data analysis for H2 shows that respondents who obtained most
of their news from print media were more likely to support free expression
than those who obtained most of their news from broadcast media.
H3 suggests that student perception of institutional control, student
attitudes regarding the balance between free expression and responsibility,
and student knowledge of free expression singularly or in combination
should predict student attitudes regarding free expression.
H3 was accepted. As shown in Table 3, the results of the regression for the
hypothesis were significant at F(3,1218)=158.006, p=.0001 for the
combination of the three independent variables. The R2 value of .280
indicates that 28 percent of the variance in student attitudes can be
attributed to the variables of institutional control, balance and
knowledge. When taken individually, all three variables were significant
predictors of student attitudes at p=.0001.
Table 3
Regression for Free Expression Variables as Predictors of Student Attitudes
Regarding Free Expression
__________________________________________________________________
Variable B SE B b p
__________________________________________________________________
Institutional Control .773 .209 .090 .0001
Balance .637 .034 .471 .0001
Knowledge -.597 .112
-.133 .0001
__________________________________________________________________
Note: R2 = .280.
Ultimately, the analysis suggests the respondents were more supportive of
free expression if they believed they had "total" or "a lot" of freedom of
expression in high school, if they were more likely to favor free
expression when asked to balance it against responsibility, and if they
scored high on the knowledge portion of the questionnaire.
H4 suggests that variables dealing with school experiences – whether a
respondent attended a public high school, whether his or her school had a
student newspaper, whether any school newspaper was school-sponsored, and
whether a respondent helped produce a school newspaper – singularly or in
combination, should significantly predict student attitudes regarding free
expression.
Parts of H4 were accepted. Results of the regression for the hypothesis
were significant at F(4,1138)=3.490, p=.008 for the combination of these
four variables representing high school experience. As revealed in Table 4,
the R2 value of .012 indicates that only 1.2 percent of the variance in
student attitudes regarding free expression can be attributed to the four
variables representing high school experience. When these variables were
taken individually, only one variable – whether the student had a role in
producing the newspaper – was a significant predictor of student attitudes
regarding free expression at p=.002.
Table 4
Regression for High School Experience Variables as Predictors of Student
Attitudes Regarding Free Expression
__________________________________________________________________
Variable B SE B b p
__________________________________________________________________
Public/Private .402 .476 .025 .399
Have Newspaper .401 1.277 .016 .754
Sponsorship .107 .220
.039 .439
Production
Role -1.446 .470 -.091
.002
__________________________________________________________________
Note: R2 = .012.
Analysis of data for H4 suggests that students who work on a school
newspaper are more likely to support free expression than those who do not
work on a paper. But there was no statistically significant connection
between attitudes and whether respondents attended schools with student
newspapers.
H5 suggested that responses to the ratification question should
significantly predict student attitudes regarding free expression.
H5 was rejected at F(1,1188)=2.170, p=.141. Student responses to ratify the
First Amendment were not a significant predictor of student attitudes
regarding free expression. The R2 value of .002 indicates answers to the
ratification question contributed to only .2 percent of the variance in
student attitudes.
The results of the data analysis can be summed up by stating that the
respondents were more likely to support free expression if they:
* were male.
* were white.
* obtained most of their news from print media.
* believed they had "total" or "a lot" of freedom of expression in high
school.
* were more likely to favor free expression when asked to balance it
against responsibility.
* scored relatively high on the knowledge portion of the questionnaire.
* worked on a school newspaper.
The analysis did not find connections between attitudes regarding free
expression and the following:
* respondents' income,
* where respondents learned about free expression,
* whether respondents attended public schools,
* whether the respondents attended a school with a student newspaper,
* whether a school newspaper was school-sponsored, and
* whether respondents supported ratifying the First Amendment today.
Discussion
This study's findings regarding the demographic variables of gender and
race are consistent with those of other studies that revealed that males
and whites are more likely to support free expression.[27] But unlike
previous research, this study did not find that income level was a
predictor of attitudes. While it is possible that income levels are
predictors of attitudes, this study may have used a population that was too
homogeneous to reveal the connection. Only 2.9 percent of the respondents
came from families that made less than $20,000 a year, and only 21.7
percent made less than $40,000 a year.
The data analysis also shows that respondents who obtained most of their
news from print media were more likely to support free expression than
those who obtained most of their news from broadcast media. If such a link
does exist, it may have something to do with the fact that print media are
subjected to less government control than are broadcast media. People who
support free expression may, in some way, feel more comfortable using those
media that are relatively uncontrolled by government.
Data analysis of H3 shows that respondents were more likely to support free
expression if they believed their school had provided them with "total" or
"a lot" of freedom of expression. This finding, which is most central to
this study, is discussed at greater length later. The other findings from
H3 deserve brief discussion here.
Analysis of data from H3 also reveals that respondents who are most
supportive of free expression are more likely to favor free expression when
asked to balance it against responsibility. No other studies were found
that tried to measure free expression support when freedom was balanced
against responsibility, but the results found in this study seem reasonable
because the two variables – attitudes and balance – are measuring similar
attitudes.
The analysis of data from H3 further reveals a connection between
respondents who scored relatively high on a knowledge exam and their
support for free expression. This finding was consistent with the research
from McCloskey and Brill.[28] They administered a 10-item "Civil Liberties
Quiz" to try to determine if there was a link between political tolerance
and knowledge of civil liberties. Their analysis determined that the link
not only existed, but it existed for each of the three groups they tested,
the mass public, community leaders and the legal elite.
The analysis of data from H4 shows respondents were more likely to support
free expression if they worked on a student newspaper. Previous studies did
not examine what connections, if any, may exist between involvement in
student media and support for free expression, but the connection seems
logical. Students who are regularly involved in the student press would
likely value free expression whether their schools are open to controversy
or not.
But there was no statistically significant connection between respondents'
attitudes and whether they attended schools with student newspapers.
Although prior research had not reported on any possible connections
between these variables, it seems likely that students who had attended
schools with newspapers would be supportive of free expression because they
had experienced first-hand the benefits (and liabilities) of mass-mediated
expression. It is possible, however, that many of the newspapers were
heavily controlled by school administrators, and the students were unable
to experience unfettered student expression. It also is possible that this
study's sample was too homogeneous to provide accurate analysis. Only 8.8
percent of the respondents reported they had not attended a school with a
student newspaper.
Analysis of the data from the final hypothesis, H5, provides the somewhat
surprising result that there was no connection between the respondents'
attitudes regarding free expression and whether they would ratify the First
Amendment today. It seems likely that people who would ratify the First
Amendment would have attitudes that favor the free expression of others.
But many people possibly see ratification and support as different
concepts. When they agree to ratify the First Amendment, they are agreeing
to support a general notion of free expression. But for the respondents to
have an attitude that supports free expression, at least in this study,
they had to approve of others' right to express themselves in specific
incidences, including some that involved controversial and offensive
speech. Previous studies have noted how Americans support the general
concept of free expression but often fail to maintain the support when
speech becomes controversial or offensive.[29] Therefore, the lack of a
connection between attitudes and ratification of the First Amendment may
simply reflect this apparent contradiction.
The central finding of this study – that respondents were more likely to
support free expression if they believed they had "total" or "a lot" of
freedom of expression in high school – suggests that the school environment
does play a part in how students view the rights of speech and free press.
This study's findings regarding attitudes and school environment are not
consistent with at least an earlier study that failed to uncover a
connection between open classrooms and support for free expression among
students,[30] but other studies have suggested that a connection indeed exists.
Among those studies that support this study's finding was one conducted by
Wyatt in which survey respondents reported that they felt freest to speak
when they were at home or at the home of a close friend.[31] Other studies
also have examined attitude's link to environment. One was a report that
suggested students were more tolerant of dissent when they were allowed to
discuss controversial topics in class.[32] Researchers have reported that
other studies also have shown that there is a positive connection between
"a democratic school climate" and the "development of democratic civic
attitudes" among students.[33] And a study published in 1975 revealed that
students who perceived an open climate were more likely to support the Bill
of Rights.[34]
Neither this study nor the previous research suggests a causal link between
environment and attitude. But there is growing evidence that the two work
hand-in-hand. And it seems logical that students who are given significant
freedom of expression in schools are more likely to support free expression
in a democracy.
Conclusions and Recommendations
As surveys continue to report that large numbers of Americans are
unwilling to support the free-speech and free-press protections of the
First Amendment, journalists, educators and civil libertarians need to
continue looking at a broad range of possible reasons for the public's
faltering support. Dissatisfaction with news media performance is one
likely causes for some of the lack of support, but there is plenty of
anecdotal evidence that a portion of the problem exists in American
schools.[35] Take, for example, the case of Kathryn Sinclair.
One of four valedictorians at Riverdale High School in Murfreesboro, Tenn.,
in 1994, Sinclair was told by the school principal that school officials
had to approve the
text of her graduation speech before she could give it. When she refused on
First Amendment grounds, most of her classmates ostracized her. Many wanted
to have her kicked out of school, and some even threatened to beat her.
They were afraid that she would ruin the graduation by saying something
negative about them or the school.[36]
Sinclair finished her senior year by studying at home. Eventually, she
agreed to read the speech to the principal prior to graduation, but she
told him she would not change its content. As she delivered her speech on
graduation day, she quoted from the First Amendment and urged her
classmates to think for themselves. After she finished, one student – only
one – applauded. Later, she explained that her classmates supported the
administration's efforts of prior approval because they did not know much
about the First Amendment and citizens' free-speech rights. "One of the
main things they should be teaching is who we are as Americans," she said.
"In four years, we had to memorize the preamble of the Constitution for
extra credit, but a study of the Bill of Rights was never required. We did
not cover the First Amendment or any of the other amendments." [37]
The case of Sinclair and hundreds of other students each year should send a
signal to journalists that the teaching of First Amendment values in
schools and the development of environments where free expression is
welcome may be critical steps in helping the public appreciate the need for
speech and press protections.
Researchers, meanwhile, should increase their work in this area to help
build a framework of scholarship regarding the factors that affect
free-expression knowledge and attitudes. For example, other studies could
focus on any relationship between school environments and knowledge or
attitudes by using some objective way to measure institutional control or
the amount of free expression allowed in the schools. This study tried to
measure only the students' perceptions of institutional control.
Other studies could examine free expression knowledge by using more
knowledge questions, or by using questions that focus on other aspects of
knowledge, such as knowledge of free expression philosophy or the history
of expression in America.
And other studies could further examine the different ways that attitudes
may be measured. As previous research has suggested, attitudes about free
expression can change depending on whether people are asked about freedom
in the abstract or whether they are asked to respond to specific incidences
of expression. Therefore, other studies could try to examine attitudes in
even more ways so that researchers may get a more complete picture of what
people think about free expression and what affects their attitudes about
such freedom.
Much of what is now being done to examine attitudes and knowledge about
free expression involves simple analysis of survey results and the
collection of anecdotal evidence. But this study took the research to
another level by using quantitative research techniques and more
sophisticated data analysis. The findings were far from conclusive, of
course, but it suggests there may indeed be a link between students'
attitudes about free expression and their school environments. If further
research is consistent with this finding, the free-speech environment of
schools should attract the attention of journalists, educators,
politicians, civil libertarians and anyone else interested in maintaining
strong public support for freedom of expression.
NOTES
[1] "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[2] Among the most recent surveys to study public opinion of the First
Amendment are the annual State of the First Amendment surveys conducted by
the First Amendment Center.
[3] First Amendment Center, State of the First Amendment 2002, 28, 24.
[4] S.M. Elam, "Anti-American Attitudes of High School Seniors in the
Orwell Year," Phi Delta Kappan, January 1984.
[5] G. Zellman and D. Sears, "Childhood Origins of Tolerance for Dissent,"
Journal of Social Issues, 1971.
[6] Higher Education Research Institute, "An Overview of the 2000 Freshman
Norms," 27 January 2001, available at http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/heri.html?
[7] Paul Gagnon, Educating Democracy: State Standards to Ensure a Civic
Core, Albert Shanker Institute, 2003.
[8] James S. Leming, "Research on Social Studies Curriculum and
Instruction: Interventions and Outcomes in the Socio-moral Domain," Review
of Research in Social Studies Education: 1976-1983, Boulder, CO:ERIC
Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education, 1985, 156.
[9] William Brennan, Doe vs. Renfrow, 451 U.S. 1022, 1981, 1028.
[10] Paul McMasters, "Teaching Freedom Where it Does Not Exist," Student
Press Law Center Report, spring 2000, 3.
[11] Dennis Goldenson, "An Alternative View About the Role of the
Secondary School in Political Socialization: A Field-experimental Study of
the Development of Civil Liberties Attitudes," Theory and Research in
Social Education, 1978, 44-72.
[12] David Grossman, "Educational Climates and Attitudes Toward Dissent: A
Study of Political Socialization of Conflict Norms in Adolescents," paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research
Association, Chicago, IL, 1974.
[13] James J. Patrick and James D. Hoge, "Teaching Government, Civics, and
Law," Handbook of Research on Social Studies Teaching and Learning, James
P. Shaver, ed., New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1991, 433.
[14] Richard G. Niemi and Jane Junn, Civic Education: What Makes Students
Learn, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998, 150.
[15] Carole L. Hahn, Becoming Political: Comparative Perspectives on
Citizenship Education, Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1998.
[16] John E. Baughman, "An Investigation of the Impact of Civics on
Political Attitudes of Adolescents," (Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland,
1975).
[17] Thomas E. Eveslage, "The Social Studies and Scholastic Journalism:
Partners in Citizenship Education," Social Education, 57, 2, 1993, 85.
[18] Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 1988, 273.
[19] G. Garneau, "A First Amendment Disaster: Journalism Groups and Media
Attorneys Decry This Week's High Court Ruling Allowing High School
Officials to Censor a Student Newspaper," Editor & Publisher, 16 January
1988, 12.
[20] Robert P. Knight, "High School Journalism in the Post-Hazelwood Era,"
Journalism Educator, 43, 1988, 42-47.
[21] Knight, "High School Journalism."
[22] Carl Jensen, "What Happened to Good Old-Fashioned Muckraking?" Into
the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press, Kristina
Borjesson, ed., Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2002, 342.
[23] Neil Ralston, "An Investigation of the Relationships Between High
School Environment and the Students' Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Free
Expression," (Ph.D. diss., University of Missouri-Columbia, 2002), 157 and 158.
[24] Ralston, "An Investigation," 156.
[25] Ralston, "An Investigation," 157.
[26] Statistical information provided by the registrar's office of Truman
State University.
[27] Ralston, "An Investigation."
[28] Herbert McClosky & Alida Brill, Dimensions of tolerance: What
Americans believe about civil liberties, New York: Russell Sage Foundation,
1983.
[29]
Among the studies that suggest Americans favor free expression in the
abstract but are less supportive in specific instances were the recent
State of the First Amendment reports published by the First Amendment
Center as well as research noted earlier by McCloskey and Brill. Other
studies showing this include the following: Samuel A. Stouffer, Communism,
conformity, and civil liberties: A cross-section of the nation speaks its
mind, Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co. Inc., 1955; and Robert O. Wyatt,
Free expression and the American public: A survey commemorating the 200th
anniversary of the First Amendment, Murfreesboro, TN: The American Society
of Newspaper Editors & The Chair of Excellence in First Amendment Studies,
Middle Tennessee State University, 1991.
[30]
Carole L. Hahn, Becoming Political: Comparative Perspectives on
Citizenship Education, Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1998.
[31] Robert O. Wyatt, Free expression and the American public: A survey
commemorating the 200th anniversary of the First Amendment, Murfreesboro,
TN: The American Society of Newspaper Editors & The Chair of Excellence in
First Amendment Studies, Middle Tennessee State University, 1991.
[32] David Grossman, "Educational climates and attitudes toward dissent: A
study of political socialization of conflict norms in adolescents," paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL, 1974.
[33]
James J. Patrick and James D. Hoge, "Teaching Government, Civics, and
Law," Handbook of Research on Social Studies Teaching and Learning, James
P. Shaver, ed., New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1991, 433.
[34]
John E. Baughman, "An Investigation of the Impact of Civics on Political
Attitudes of Adolescents," (Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland, 1975).
[35] 1 In a Sept. 19, 2000 telephone interview, John Eastburg,
administrative assistant of the Student Press Law Center, said that in 1999
the Center received 807 calls from students and teachers at public and
private high schools. Of that number, he said 47 percent (about 375)
concerned allegations of censorship.
[36] Nat Hentoff, Living the Bill of Rights, New York: HarperCollins, 1998.
[37]
Hentoff, Living the Bill of Rights, 134.
|
