|
Statute Midwifery:
Nurturing Passage of a State Student Publications Act
by
Bruce L. Plopper
Department of Journalism
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
2801 S. University Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72204-1099
Phone (501) 569-3250
Presented to the Scholastic Journalism Division
at the August 1995 AEJMC Annual Meeting in Washington, DC
Running Head: Statute Midwifery
Statute Midwifery:
Nurturing Passage of a State Student Publications Act
by
Bruce L. Plopper
Department of Journalism
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
2801 S. University Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72204-1099
Abstract
This paper reviews research concerning the attitudes that principals,
journalism advisers, high school journalism press association
directors,
and student editors hold toward student publications, and it reviews
research concerning effective political strategies. It then describes how
such research can be synthesized to create a successful campaign to
pass
a state student publications act, and it chronicles the implementation
of
such a campaign in Arkansas. It suggests that other states may wish to
adopt such techniques.
Statute Midwifery:
Nurturing Passage of a State Student Publications Act
In the seven years since the U.S. Supreme Court gave public school
administrators nearly
absolute control of school-sponsored student publications
(Hazelwood, 1988), supporters of
the student press in 28 states have tried to convince their politicians to
protect
student expression by state statute (M. Goodman, personal communication,
March 13, 1995).1
Efforts have been successful in Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, and
Massachusetts,
which increased to six the number of states having some form of
statutory protection for
student expression in school-sponsored publications. Prior to 1988,
only California had
included such protection in its Education Code.
Shortly after the Hazelwood decision, one educator called upon university
schools and
departments to "... help the Third Press to secure laws forbidding
censorship" (Knight,
1988, p. 47), while others decried the kind of censorship allowed
under the Court's new
guidelines (Garneau, 1988; Hentoff, 1988; "Hazelwood: Experts React,
1988). Additionally,
there emerged a new focus on research that could be related to
successful campaigns for
student publications legislation.
The most helpful research has specifically tapped two areas: (1) how
principals,
scholastic press association directors, journalism advisers, and students
view various
aspects of student publications, and (2) what strategies are
successful in securing pol
itical support for legislation. Very few, if any, scholarly studies
or popular media
articles have addressed the ways these two types of information may be
synthesized to
produce positive results. Such a synthesis was successful in the
battle to gain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
---
1The winter 1994-95 (p. 25), spring 1994 (p. 10), and winter 1993-94 (p. 18)
issues of
the Student Press Law Center Report track the most recent attempts
to pass student freedom
of the press statutes.
Statute Midwifery 2
student publications legislation in Arkansas, and this paper documents the
"synergistic"
path that was followed in that state. With a failure rate of 85% in
the 27 other states
where efforts have been made to pass such legislation since 1988,
another approach seemed
overdue.
Research Concerning Views About the Student Press
In mid-1988, Click and Kopenhaver reported a nationwide study of high school
principals
and publications advisers that showed both groups, by overwhelming
percentages, favored
prior review of student publications (p. 50). Dickson (1989)
reported that 98.6% of the
Missouri principals he surveyed expected journalism advisers to talk
to them if the
advisers had any questions about the appropriateness of material
scheduled for
publication, and he documented several categories of subject matter that
principals
thought they would suppress in a student publication, if found
objectionable (p. 171).
Dvorak, Lain, and Dickson (1994), citing Dickson's previously unpublished 1990
nationwide
study of high school newspaper advisers, reported that the kind of
newspaper content causing
the most conflict was that which was considered to be "not fair or
balanced" (p. 290).
Click, Kopenhaver, and Hatcher (1993) surveyed principals and journalism
advisers
nationwide, asking about their attitudes toward student press freedom. They
found that the
two groups differed "... significantly in their attitudes toward
factors relating to student
newspapers" (p. 69) and suggested, "Advisers may be well advised to
work with their
principals to narrow this gap" (p. 69).
Olson, Van Ommeren, and Rossow (1993) asked the nation's scholastic press
association
directors about their attitudes toward the student press and found
high agreement with the
statement, "High school journalism advisers should review all
Statute Midwifery 3
copy before it is printed" (p. 11). They also concluded, "Concerning press
rights, the
directors believe that high school journalists should be granted
First Amendment
protection coupled with a strong commitment, as one director puts it, to
'teaching, not
supervision, advising, not control'" (p. 12).
Dickson (1994) researched self-censorship attitudes of high school newspaper
editors and
advisers. He found various degrees of agreement between the two
groups concerning both
censorship and self-censorship, and he concluded that while most
editors were deferential
to their advisers, both "... editors and advisers agreed that only
limited self-censorship
was being practiced and that most newspapers had not failed to run important
stories
because of self-censorship" (p. 62).
Research Concerning Successful Political Strategies
Nearly 20 years ago, Overbeck (1977, p. 7) described the give-and-take
political process
that resulted in a document concerning student press guidelines in
Los Angeles. The
process involved journalism teachers, local celebrities, parents,
students, and Los
Angeles School Board members, and although the agreement that was
reached was not ideal,
at least from the journalism teachers' viewpoint, it was better than
no agreement at all,
given the circumstances.
While Overbeck's work shed light on the process of compromise that occurred in
a large
city, others have examined different factors affecting political
decisions. For example,
Songer et al. (1986) surveyed legislators in Kansas and Oklahoma,
and found that the
legislators' personal values and attitudes were the most common
influence on their
political decisions. Additionally, these researchers found that overall,
constituent
influence was more important than the influence of party leaders,
fellow legislators,
interest groups, or reading material. Constituent influence, however,
Statute Midwifery 4
varied from 0-100%, depending on the issue involved.
Henry (1990) chronicled the fight for student press legislation in Colorado,
noting, "The
Colorado legislation was supported by a remarkable effort from a large number
of
organizations and individuals" (p. 15). Within that large number were
teachers' orga
nizations, journalism organizations, friendly legislators, and student
newspaper staff
members.
An updated version of the Student Press Law Center's guidelines for coalition
building
and lobbying by students and teachers (1990) confirmed the
usefulness of the approach used
in Colorado to pass that state's student free press act. The publication also
provides
suggestions about ways to frame the issue so that supporters can
deflect some of the
criticisms made of their efforts.
Mooney (1991) examined the use that state legislators made of written
information and
concluded, "... almost three-quarters of the written information
these legislators used
came from their colleagues, interest groups, and executive agencies
..." (p. 442).
Mooney's point was that generally, state legislators do not seek out
written information
about the issues on which they vote.
Dvorak and Dilts (1992) discussed the politics of conflict between academic
freedom and
administrative authority. They stressed that after Hazelwood, when
conflict arises over
student publications, journalism teachers can appeal only to the
needs of journalism
pedagogy (p. 3). They continued, "There is, of course, no quandary when
teachers,
administrators, and school boards agree on the goals and purposes of
journalism education"
(pp. 3-4). Clearly, obtaining agreement reduces conflict.
The same philosophy was espoused by Clark (1994), who noted that The Poynter
Institute
for Media Studies has begun a program called "A Free and Responsible
Statute Midwifery 5
Student Press." With publications advisers, principals, and superintendents in
mind, Clark
wrote, "We think one of our jobs is to attempt to create some opportunity for
common
ground, reconciling some differences and engaging in a conversation
with various players
so we can identify those shared values that we encourage rather than
discourage in the
student press" (p. 122).
Another aspect of the political process involving student publications
legislation is who
makes the most successful legislative sponsor. Olson, Van Ommeren, and Rossow
(1994)
surveyed both successful and unsuccessful sponsors of student
publications laws, and
profiled the characteristics of each. They found that compared to
unsuccessful sponsors,
the successful sponsors had more legislative experience, were less
likely to have urban
constituencies, were more likely to have been high school
journalists, and were more
likely to be either current or former teachers/educators. Overall, they
reported that
sponsors tended to be Democrats rather than Republicans.
Of equal importance was that they asked unsuccessful sponsors why high school
press
freedom legislation had failed in their states. The most frequent
responses were
opposition both from school boards' organizations and teachers'
organizations, with severa
l respondents adding principals' organizations and superintendents'
organizations to the
list (p. 16).
The Synthesis
Given the available research, it is clear that many elements affect the chances
of
political success for a state student publications act. The major
elements relate to
content of the proposed act, support for the proposed act, and sponsors
of the proposed
act. The elements, too, are inter-related.
Statute Midwifery 6
Regarding content of and support for the proposed act, advocates of high school
press
freedom may wish to model their legislation after Student Press Law
Center guidelines, or
after existing state statutes or local policies.2 The goal is to
create a proposal that
will receive widespread support from teachers, students, parents,
journalists, school
administrators, and all of the organizations associated with these
individuals. This may
mean lengthy discussions with a variety of people over an extended
period of time, and the
end product may involve compromise.
Given the data concerning the views of principals, journalism advisers, and
high school
press association directors, it would seem prudent to write
legislation that would not
exclude prior review of student publications, but that would
emphasize fairness and
responsibility as an end goal for student journalists. It also would
seem beneficial to
minimize the role of editorial self-censorship by requiring written
publications
guidelines. Additionally, to gain maximum support, it would seem imperative
to frame the
issue in terms that potential opposition could appreciate, and to
place appropriate
written material into the hands of that opposition, as well as into the
hands of
legislators and potential supporters.
Ideal sponsors for the proposed act would seem to be Democrats who (1) have
constituencies of either rural or rural-urban natures, (2) are experienced
legislators,
and (3) have backgrounds in teaching and media. Co-sponsors would be
useful, if finding
one sponsor with all of the ideal characteristics is impossible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2Student Press Law Center model guidelines and examples of state and local laws
are
available from the SPLC in Arlington, VA. They also may be found in
Knopes, C. (Ed.)
(1994). Death By Cheeseburger, VA: The Freedom Forum: Arlington, pp.
162-167.
Statute Midwifery 7
The Arkansas Experience3
It is common knowledge that Arkansas, by nearly all definitions, is populated
with
conservative people. It was quite in character, therefore, for the
Arkansas Press
Association's legislative committee members to reject a proposal to
guarantee the free pre
ss rights of high school journalists, when it was presented to them
in January 1993.
Committee members refused to recommend the proposal to the full
membership of the
organization because generally, they didn't believe student editors should
be allowed to
edit without close supervision, and that anything eroding such
supervision was not a good
idea.
Nothing further was done to promote legislation during the 1993 Arkansas
legislative
session because it was clear that without media support, a student
publications act stood
little chance of passing.
In the two years between legislative sessions,4 much was done to prepare for
another
attempt to pass a student publications act. Most of the activity took
place from July 1994
through March 1995, and it was sparked by several acts of censorship at Little
Rock
Central High School. Plopper (1994) chronicled that series of events
and how they led to
the formation of a loose-knit task force of educators, students, and
media representatives
who created a proposal for the Arkansas Student Publications Act.
On July 26, 1994, at the urging of the executive secretary of the Arkansas High
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
---
3Information about the Arkansas experience was gathered from the author's
day-to-day
records concerning the events that took place.
4The Arkansas Legislature meets every other year for 60 days, beginning in the
second
week of January of odd-numbered years. Sessions may be extended, and
special sessions may
be called by the governor.
Statute Midwifery 8
School Press Association, the task force gathered to draft the Arkansas Student
Publications Act and to plan a strategy for passing the act. In its initial
form (see
Appendix A), the act recognized students' right of free expression;
stressed journalistic
responsibility; charged advisers with teaching professional
standards; protected advisers
from transfer, removal, or reprimand for lawful activities in
connection with student publications advising; absolved school districts of
liability for
suits filed against the school-sponsored publications edited by
students; required
creation of written publications policies; and allowed students or their
parents or
guardians to sue administrators for injunctive relief of censorship.
The act was labeled as a proposal from the Arkansas High School Press
Association and the
Arkansas Journalism Advisers Association, and it was agreed that initial
support would be
sought from the Arkansas Press Association, the Arkansas Professional Chapter
of the
Society of Professional Journalists, the Arkansas Education
Association (a teachers'
organization), and the Arkansas Parent-Teachers Association. Two
members of the task force
volunteered to make presentations to these groups.
During the last weekend in July, the act was presented to the Arkansas Press
Association's legislative committee, which agreed to think about supporting
it. At the end
of the presentation, a member of the committee, who in addition to being the
co-publisher
of a rural newspaper was the area's six-term state representative, volunteered
to sponsor
the act in the Arkansas House of Representatives. The act was presented to the
APA's
legislative committee again in November, at which time it was
approved.
In mid-August, the act was presented to the board of directors of the local
Society
Statute Midwifery 9
of Professional Journalists chapter, and they unanimously approved it after
questioning
the wisdom of removing school districts' liability for student
publications. The act then was presented to the chapter's entire membership at
the end of
September and again in mid-October, at which time it was approved.
In early September, the Arkansas High School Press Association's executive
secretary sent
a copy of the act to a fairly well known principal who was likely to oppose it
(W. D.
Downs, Jr., personal communication, September 6, 1994). In his
response, the principal
wrote, "'Freedom of the press' belongs to the one who 'owns the
press' and not to the
individual writers who work for the 'press.' The school district owns
the press and has
the right to exercise editorial authority over the news, opinion and
advertising content
of their (sic) publication."
In mid-September, the act was introduced to the Arkansas PTA's legislative
committee, one
member of which was a school superintendent and one member of which was a high
school
principal. Both spoke against the proposal, and three months later it
was learned that the
committee had decided neither to support the act nor oppose it, although
several of its
members wanted principals to remain in total control of student
publications.
Also in mid-September, several state senators were asked if they had interests
in
sponsoring the act, but all said they would have to see a final version
of it before
committing to sponsorship.
On October 15, at an Arkansas High School Press Association in-service
workshop, several
changes in phrasing and phrase arrangement were made in the act, to
make it more
administrator-friendly. The changes resulted from some concerns raised by
advisers who
worked closely with school administrators, and who felt that the
original act would wave too
many "red flags" at hostile administrators (see Appendix B).
Statute Midwifery 10
From mid-November to mid-January, no further action was taken toward gaining
support for
the act, but on January 20, it was learned through the Arkansas
Press Association's
lobbyist that the Arkansas Press Association member who initially had
volunteered to
sponsor the bill had been elected as an assistant to the Speaker of the
Arkansas House of
Representatives and had determined she would be too busy to sponsor
any legislation. After
various attempts to obtain a new sponsor, a first-term representative with
strong ties to
the state's Democratic Party agreed to sponsor it. Shortly thereafter, a
written plea was
made to the original would-be sponsor, asking her to co-sponsor the act, which,
in
mid-February, she agreed to do.
At the same time, friendly pressure was brought upon a long-time senator, who
also was a
university professor, to sponsor the act in the Arkansas Senate. He
also happened to be
chairman of the Senate's Education Committee, where the act would
most likely be assigned.
As he was involved in a great deal of legislation during the 1995 session, it
took him
about one and one-half months to sign on as the sponsor. Other
friendly senators were kept
waiting in the wings, just in case.
In mid-January, because there had been no response from the Arkansas Education
Association concerning support for the act, contact was again made with that
organization's lobbyist. He noted that the AEA would support the act, but that
its
lobbying activities on behalf of the act would be negligible due to
efforts it had to make
regarding other legislation.
On January 26, in an attempt to gain additional media support for the act, it
was
distributed and discussed at a meeting of another loose-knit coalition of
journalists and
educators. Several senior journalists found a variety of faults with
the act, including
its erosion of strong administrative control over content of student
publications and its
release from liability of everyone financially able to pay for
Statute Midwifery 11
damages caused by such content.
Soon, most members of the coalition voiced such strong concerns about the act
that the
executive director of the Arkansas Press Association said he thought
he should mention
these concerns to the APA's legislative committee, to see if the
committee members might
want to reconsider their support of the act. He also said he felt
the APA had originally
supported the act because its members felt somewhat obligated to do
so after the local SPJ
chapter announced its support for it.
For approximately two weeks, various changes in the act were suggested and
rejected
during an almost daily dialogue between supporters and opponents within
the state's
journalistic community. Local lawyers were consulted, as was the
director of the Student
Press Law Center. By February 15, with half of the regularly
scheduled legislative session
over, agreement was reached on a shortened version of the act (see Appendix C).
At this
point, cover letters and copies of the revised act, as well as
copies of a rationale for
the act, were delivered to the various representatives and senators
who had so far been
lobbied to sponsor or otherwise support the act. Additionally, cover
letters and copies of
both documents were delivered to other legislators who were deemed influential
in the
legislative process.
On February 21, the proposed act became House Bill 1777 when it was introduced
in the
Arkansas House of Representatives. Within three days, letters requesting
support for the
bill, along with copies of the bill and the rationale for the bill,
were mailed to
journalism educators at the state's 14 colleges and universities with
journalism and/or mass
communications departments, and to members of the state's high
school journalism
organizations. Also, personal contacts with legislators and media
representatives were made
February 23-25 at the Arkansas Press Association's winter
convention, and letters and
electronic facsimiles concerning the bill were sent to
Statute Midwifery 12
media contacts thought likely to editorialize positively about the bill. Several
did. On
March 1, rumblings of legislative opposition began to filter back to
supporters of HB
1777. One member of the House Education Committee, a school board
member, objected to
passing the bill out of that committee as a non-controversial measure.
Instead, a March 9
hearing was set for the bill.
After discussing with lobbyists from the Arkansas Press Association and the
Arkansas
Education Association the most effective ways to blunt opposition, it
was decided that
members of the opposition should be provided with a detailed analysis
of what the bill
required and why those requirements would be helpful to all those
involved in student
publications. By this time, it was clear that the best selling point
was the bill's
requirement of written student publications guidelines, so that
requirement became
supporters' major argument.
From March 3 to March 9, telephone contacts were made with the executive
directors of the
superintendents' association, the principals' association, and the schools
boards'
association, and explanatory letters and other information about the
bill were sent to
these three individuals. Intensive negotiations followed.
By the time of the hearing date, without changing the thrust of the bill, the
administrators' organizations now voiced only mild opposition to the
bill, as it had been
amended to alleviate some of their fears (see Appendix D). The
committee, however, ran out
of time before it reached HB 1777, so it was determined that
supporters could return to
testify on March 16.
From March 10 to March 15, negotiations continued with the three
administrators'
organizations. Their major complaint was that the operative sections of the
bill were not
organized under the policy-making powers of local school boards, so
ultimately, the bill was
amended again. Negotiations included personal visits with executive
directors
Statute Midwifery 13
of the superintendents' association and the principals' association, as well as
exchanges of
letters and electronic facsimiles. By now, the Arkansas Assembly had
voted to extend the
legislative session until March 24.
During this period, it was learned that a 1991 memorandum from the National
Association of
Secondary School Principals was responsible for much of the
resistance to HB 1777 (K.
Noggle, personal communication, March 10, 1995). The memorandum cited the
Hazelwood decision
and named the Student Press Law Center as leader of a nationally
organized effort to pass
legislation to overturn the effects of Hazelwood. Referring to the
purported SPLC
activities, the memorandum contained the following: "These efforts, if
successful, will
undermine the authority of principals and school officials to control
the school curriculum
.... Everything we know about effective schooling begins with the
principal assuming full
responsibility for the learning environment and academic climate of
their (sic) individual
schools."
Concomitant with the ongoing negotiations with the administrators'
organizations, a
campaign took place to locate principals and superintendents who favored
HB 1777. The
campaign was successful, and several principals and superintendents
agreed to call their
legislators and/or to write letters of support to their legislators.
By the time of the
committee hearing, supporters had in hand copies of letters from
supportive administrators,
teachers, parents, students, and other concerned citizens.
On March 16, another amended version of HB 1777 (see Appendix E) was submitted
to the House
Education Committee. Although a last-minute effort to convince the
administrators to drop
their opposition failed, the spokesperson for the opposition
testified in committee that he
felt he could be just as well testifying for the bill as against it.
He read from the 1991
memorandum circulated by the NASSP, but said supporters of the bill
had worked closely with
administrators to make the bill's
Statute Midwifery 14
language acceptable.
Committee members asked supporters questions which seemed to beg for assurances
that under
the bill's requirements, high school journalists would be fair and
responsible. Relevant
portions of the bill were read to committee members, and they seemed
satisfied. They then
passed the bill out of committee without any "no" votes.
The next day, the first extended news coverage of HB 1777 occurred, and on
Monday, March
20, the Arkansas House of Representatives voted 81-4 in favor of the
bill. Floor support for
the bill had been arranged in advance, just in case one or more
members of the House spoke
against the bill. None did.
On this same date, the Assembly voted to extend the legislative session until
March 31.
That action was helpful because it took until March 24 for the Senate
Education Committee to
discuss the bill. From March 20 to March 24, another round of
mailings and telephone calls
urged supporters to call or write to Senate committee members and
other senators. Each
member of the Senate committee received the version of the bill passed
by the House, a copy
of a letter from a principal supporting the bill, and a streamlined
version of the bill's
best selling points. Again, the requirement for written student
publications policies was
the lead argument.
On March 24, after hearing abbreviated testimony, the Senate Education
Committee
scheduled a second hearing for the bill because several members of the
committee had
questions that could not be dealt with sufficiently in the time
allotted. In the time bet
ween hearings, sponsors and supporters of the bill attempted to
answer those questions. On
March 29, during the second Senate Education Committee hearing, one senator
tried to
neutralize the bill with amendments, but supporters testifying for the
bill (and his
committee colleagues) convinced him to withdraw those amendments.
Without any "no" votes,
committee members recommended
Statute Midwifery 15
HB 1777 to the full Senate, and supporters mobilized to ensure success on the
Senate
floor. The Senate passed the bill 35-0 on April 5, after extending the
legislative session
until April 7. Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, on April 10, signed the bill into
law (Act
1109).
Earlier, a request for a signing ceremony had been submitted to the governor's
staff, and
plans had been made to invite advisers and students to the ceremony,
to help raise public
consciousness about high school journalism. Student Press Law Center
Director Mark Goodman
had commented earlier that even if the bill didn't contain
everything supporters wanted at
the outset, the symbolism associated with it could only help the
cause of high school
journalism (personal communication, March 21, 1995).
Discussion and Conclusion
Although it ended up as a convoluted process, supporters of the Arkansas
Student
Publications Act found that applying information both from surveys of those
associated with
high school publications and from surveys of those involved in
political processes could
have positive results.
First, supporters built a wide base of support for their proposed bill, and
when that base
of support seemed about to unravel, they framed the issue in terms
all could appreciate and
compromised on some of the issues involved.
Second, supporters found effective legislative sponsors, all of whom were
well-respected
Democrats with rural constituencies, and two of whom were experienced
legislators who had
either media or teaching backgrounds.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, supporters negotiated with the opposition
before the
opposition had a chance to mobilize their forces. Without giving away
everything they had
set out to accomplish, supporters convinced the opposition
Statute Midwifery 16
that the proposed act was a win-win-win situation for administrators, advisers,
and
students. In fact, the executive director of the superintendents'
association said it was
refreshing to find opposition that was interested in more than
merely trying to "run over"
school administrators (K. Noggle, personal communication, March 13, 1995).
Finally, supporters placed favorable written materials into the hands of key
legislators,
and they made sure that legislators received numerous calls and
letters supporting the
proposal. The latter effort involved a network of people willing to mail
information to
others and to call others on a moment's notice.
Although not mentioned in research directly assessing passage of student
publications acts,
it should be noted that the help of an effective lobbyist is
immeasurable. By providing
quick contact with legislators, such a person can help extinguish
problems that otherwise
might prove disastrous. Ironically, the most effective lobbyist was
provided by the Arkansas
Press Association, which was the organization least comfortable with
its support of the
original proposal.
The synthesis of information gleaned from past research and reports of attempts
in other
states to pass a student publications act was critical to the
decisions made by the student
publications act task force in Arkansas. Without such data to draw
from, devastating
decisions might have been made when crises occurred during the process.
Given that the
synthesis approach worked in one of the nation's traditionally
conservative states, there is
reason to believe it could be used equally well in other states.
Statute Midwifery 17
References
Clark, R. (1994). Finding common ground for free, responsible student press. In
Knopes, C. (Ed.). Death by cheeseburger: High school journalism in the 1990s
and
beyond. The Freedom Forum: Arlington, VA, 122.
Click, J. W., & Kopenhaver, L. L. (1988). Principals favor discipline more than
a free
press. Journalism Educator, 43(2), 48-51.
Click, J. W., Kopenhaver, L. L., & Hatcher, L. (1993). Attitudes of principals
and
teachers toward student press freedom. Journalism Educator, 48(1), 59-70.
Dickson, T. V. (1989). Attitudes of high school principals about press freedom
after
Hazelwood. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 169-173.
Dickson, T. V. (1994). Self-censorship and freedom of the public high school
press.
Journalism Educator, 49(3), 56-63.
Dvorak, J., & Dilts, J. P. (1992). Academic freedom vs. administrative
authority.
Journalism Educator, 47(2), 3-12.
Dvorak, J., Lain, L., & Dickson, T. (1994) Journalism kids do better: What
research tells
us about high school journalism. Bloomington, IN: ERIC/REC Clearinghouse.
Garneau, G. (1988, January 16). 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, 121, 12,
Hazelwood: Experts react to decision against freedom for student journalists.
(1988,
Spring). Student Press Law Center Report, 9, 3-4.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Henry, F. (1990, Fall). Passage of Colorado bill attributed to coalition,
political
networking shows the little guy can win. C:JET, 24(1), 14-15.
Statute Midwifery 18
Hentoff, N. (1988, March). School newspapers and the Supreme Court.School
Library
Journal, 34, 114-116.
Knight, R. P. (1988). High school journalism in the post-Hazelwood era.ournalism
Educator, 43(2), 42-47.
Knopes, C. (Ed.). (1994). Death by cheeseburger: High school journalism in the
1990s
and beyond. Arlington, VA: The Freedom Forum.
Mooney, C. Z. (1991). Peddling information in the state legislature: Closeness
counts.
The Western Political Quarterly, 44, 433-443.
Olson, L. D., Van Ommeren, R., & Rossow, M. (1993, Spring). The nation's
scholastic
press association directors describe the state of high school journalism.
C:JET,
26(3), 10-12.
Olson, L. D., Van Ommeren, R., & Rossow, M. (1994, August). State high school
press
freedom laws: A profile of legislative sponsors. Paper presented to the
Scholastic
Journalism Division, at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication, Atlanta, GA. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 374 460)
Overbeck, W. (1977, August). Protecting student press freedom by state law: The
experience in California. Paper presented to the Secondary Education Division,
at
the annual meeting meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism,
Madison, WI. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED163514)
Plopper, B. L. (1994, October/November). Anatomy of high school censorship (and
what students did about it). Quill & Scroll, 69, 11-13.
Songer, D. R., Dillon, S. G., Kite, D. W., Jameson, P. E., Underwood, J. M., &
Underwood,
W.D. (1986). The influence of issues on choice of voting cues utilized by state
legislators. The Western Political Quarterly, 39, 118-125.
Statute Midwifery 19
State expression bills have tough season. (1994, Spring). Student Press Law
Center
Report, 15, 10.
State free speech legislation grows. (1994-95, Winter). Student Press Law Center
Report, 16, 25, 27.
States to introduce bills. (1993-94, Winter). Student Press Law Center Report,
15, 18-19.
Student free expression legislation: Coalition building and lobbying by students
and
teachers. (1990). Arlington, VA: Student Press Law Center.
Statute Midwifery 20
Appendix A
The Arkansas Student Publications Act -- Draft No. 1 (July 26, 1994)
A. Students of the public schools shall have the right to exercise freedom of
speech and
of the press, including, but not limited to, the publication and
distribution of
ex-pression in school-sponsored publications, whether such publications or
other means of
expression are supported financially by the school or by use of
school facilities or are
produced in conjunction with a class, except as provided in
subsection B.
B. Truth, fairness, accuracy and responsibility are essential to the practice of
journalism; therefore, nothing in this act shall be interpreted to
authorize expression by
students that
1) is obscene as to minors as defined by state law
2) is libelous or slanderous as defined by state law
3) constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy as defined by state law, or
4) so incites students as to create a clear and present danger of the
commission of
unlawful acts on school premises or the violation of lawful school
regulation, or the
material and substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the
school. School of
ficials must base a forecast of material and substantial disruption on
specific facts,
including past experience in the school and current events
influencing student behavior,
and not on undifferentiated fear or apprehension.
C. Student editors of school-sponsored publications shall be responsible for
determining
the news, opinion and advertising content of their publications,
subject to the
limitations of this act. Academic disciplinary action shall not be imposed
upon students
except in cases involving violation of this act. It shall be the
responsibility of a
journalism adviser or advisers of student publications within each
school to supervise the
production of the school-sponsored publication(s) and maintain the provisions
of this
act, while also maintaining professional standards of English and
responsible journalism,
including truth, fairness and accuracy. No journalism adviser will
be fired, transferred
or removed from his or her position for refusing to suppress the
protected free expression
rights of student journalists.
D. No expression made by students in the exercise of free speech or free press
rights
shall be deemed to be an expression of school policy, and no school
official or school
district shall be held responsible in any civil or criminal action
for any expression made
or published by students unless school officials have interfered with or
altered the
content of the student expression.
E. Each school shall adopt rules and regulations in the form of a written
student freedom
of expression policy developed jointly with the student publication
adviser(s) and the
appropriate school administrator(s), in accordance with this act, which
shall include
reasonable provisions for the time, place and manner of student
expression.
F. Any student, individually or through a parent, guardian or publication
adviser, may
institute proceedings for injunctive relief or declaratory relief in
any court of
competent jurisdiction to enforce the rights provided in this act.
Statute Midwifery 21
Appendix B
The Arkansas Student Publications Act -- Draft No. 2 (October 15, 1994)
A. Students of the public schools shall have the right to exercise freedom of
speech and of
the press, including, but not limited to, the publication and
distribution of ex-pression
in school-sponsored publications, whether such publications or other
means of expression
are supported financially by the school or by use of school
facilities or are produced in
conjunction with a class, except as provided in Section B of this
act.
B. Truth, fairness, accuracy and responsibility are essential to the practice of
journalism; therefore, nothing in this act shall be interpreted to
authorize expression by
students that
1) is obscene as to minors as defined by state law
2) is libelous or slanderous as defined by state law
3) constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy as defined by state law, or
4) so incites students as to create a clear and present danger of the
commission of
unlawful acts on school premises or the violation of lawful school
regulation, or the
material and substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the
school. School of
ficials must base a forecast of material and substantial disruption on
specific facts,
including past experience in the school and current events
influencing student behavior,
and not on undifferentiated fear or apprehension.
C. It shall be the responsibility of a journalism adviser or advisers of student
publications within each school to supervise the production of the
school-sponsored
publication(s) and maintain the provisions of this act, while teaching and
encouraging prof
essional standards of English and responsible journalism, including
truth, fairness and
accuracy. Student editors of school-sponsored publications shall be
responsible for
determining the news, opinion and advertising content of their
publications, subject to the
limitations of this act. Academic disciplinary action shall not be
imposed upon students
(for the exercise of their free speech and press rights), except in
cases involving
violation of this act. Refusal to suppress the protected free expression
rights of student
journalists will not be grounds for a journalism adviser to be
fired, officially
reprimanded, transferred or removed from his or her position.
D. No expression made by students in the exercise of free speech or free press
rights
shall be deemed to be an expression of school policy, and no school
official or school
district shall be held responsible in any civil or criminal action
for any expression made
or published by students unless school officials have interfered with or
altered the
content of the student expression.
E. Each school shall adopt rules and regulations in the form of a written
student freedom
of expression policy developed jointly with the student publication
adviser(s) and the
appropriate school administrator(s), in accordance with this act, which
shall include
reasonable provisions for the time, place and manner of student
expression.
F. Any student, individually or through a parent, guardian or publication
adviser, may
institute proceedings for injunctive relief or declaratory relief in
any court of
competent jurisdiction to enforce the rights provided in this act.
Statute Midwifery 22
Appendix C
The Arkansas Student Publications Act -- Draft No. 3 (February 15, 1995)
Section 1. Students of the public schools shall have the right to exercise
freedom of
speech and of the press, including, but not limited to, the
publication and distribution
of expression in school-sponsored publications, whether such
publications or other means
of expression are supported financially by the school or by use of
school facilities or
are produced in conjunction with a class, except as provided in
Section 2 of this act.
Section 2. Truth, fairness, accuracy and responsibility are essential to the
practice of
journalism; therefore, nothing in this act shall be interpreted to
authorize expression by
students that
1) is obscene as to minors as defined by state law
2) is libelous or slanderous as defined by state law
3) constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy as defined by state law, or
4) so incites students as to create a clear and present danger of the
commission of
unlawful acts on school premises or the violation of lawful school
regulation, or the
material and substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the
school. School of
ficials must base a forecast of material and substantial disruption on
specific facts,
including past experience in the school and current events
influencing student behavior,
and not on undifferentiated fear or apprehension.
Section 3. Each school shall adopt rules and regulations in the form of a
written student
freedom of expression policy developed jointly by the student
publication adviser(s) and
the appropriate school administrator(s), in accordance with this
act, which shall include
reasonable provisions for the time, place and manner of student
expression.
Section 4. Any student, individually or through a parent, guardian or
publication adviser,
may institute proceedings for injunctive relief or declaratory relief in any
court of
competent jurisdiction to enforce the rights provided in this act.
Statute Midwifery 23
Appendix D
Arkansas Student Publications Act Draft No. 4 (March 9, 1995)
Section 1. TITLE. This act shall be known and cited as the "Arkansas Student
Publications Act."
Section 2. Students in the public schools shall have the right to exercise
freedom of the press, including the publication and distribution of
expression in
school-sponsored publications, whether such publications or other means of
expression are supported financially by the school or by use of school
facilities or
are produced in conjunction with a class, except as provided in Section 3 of
this act.
Section 3. Truth, fairness, accuracy and responsibility are essential to
the
practice of journalism; therefore, nothing in this act shall be interpreted
to
authorize expression by students that
(1) is obscene as to minors as defined by state law
(2) is libelous or slanderous as defined by state law
(3) constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy as defined by state
law, or
(4) so incites students as to create a clear and present danger of the
commission of unlawful acts on school premises or the violation of lawful
school regulation or the material and substantial disruption of the
orderly
operation of the school.
Section 4. Each school shall adopt rules and regulations in the form of a
written student publications policy developed in conjunction with the
student
publication adviser(s) and the appropriate school administrator(s), in
accordance
with this act, which shall include reasonable provisions for the time,
place and
manner of distributing student publications.
|
