William Chrisman Editorial
By: Aundria Barbour
As a student editor for a school publication, you are expected to have more responsibilities and, with that, access to first amendment rights via press rights. These rights, which are protected under two court cases, Tinker v Des Moines and Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier, as well as board policies, provide guidelines for how the school administration involves themselves in the printing and publication process. While each case is different in how school administrators play a role in student publications, they are equally important in affirming the first amendment rights of students and the student press.
The two cases have different standings, each with their legal framework for schools to work within, based on whether the speech or expression is considered school-sponsored or not. Tinker explains that student journalists and teachers do not give up the right to free speech when that speech is not school-sponsored.
“It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
This means that as long as a student is speaking or expressing an opinion or belief of their own, not as part of a class or school program, school officials may not prohibit speech. The only way this speech can be limited is if it provides a disturbance to and for learning. This gives students and teachers the freedom to express their opinion and beliefs without punishment. Public schools follow this standard, giving students the room to exercise their free speech, as long as they follow the guidelines of what is and is not appropriate.
Hazelwood, in contrast, explains that schools have some authority over the expression of their students and staff, if the publication is sponsored by the school through funding or class time or other resources provided by the school.
“If mere incompatibility with the school’s pedagogical message were a constitutionally sufficient justification for the suppression of student speech, school officials could censor each of the students or student organizations.”
When the school sponsors the forum being used, administration is able to delay or stop publication of materials they find to be materially and substantially disruptive to the school environment or the learning process. The reason is because the publication is sponsored by the school through funding or class time or other resources provided by the school.
William Chrisman, by definition of our own board policy, follows the Tinker guideline, by defining student media as a public forum. That presents its journalism students the freedom to express their thoughts and ideas as long as they go by the guidelines in both their student handbooks and any district guidelines set. This standard has been upheld for at least the last 14 years, all under the same principal. In the 2021-22 year, administration in the building has proven unwilling to answer questions or support student media in various ways.
In early December of 2021, the administration expressed their desire for prior review, citing a process for all three high schools to give their books a final look over before they go in for print. This is not what the students and their teachers have gone through in previous years. Administration explained that they have this ability, explaining that, “...of course people have to look through your stuff,” when discussing the review. These actions were claimed to be under a board policy that they never identified to the advisor or chief editor, and refused to explain when asked about it.
This was not how the process worked in previous years, even under previous advisors of The Gleam. According to The Gleam’s yearbook representative, this kind of prior review does not happen at public schools in the region, though some private schools do have a review process. Public and private schools fall under different constitutional rules and are subject to different standards because of this. The editors and yearbook staff agreed, under the agreement that the administration involved would not overplay their role and allow students to continue working without interruption or objection over the material that does not offend the school rules.
This arrangement, which the administration confirmed would be the way the process works, would then follow school board policy and board regulation 2910 about challenged material. This policy gives the student editorial board the ability to make final decisions on content in the yearbook. If there are reservations from an advisor or administrator, the process must be followed for the adults in the process to get their reservations on record, while still allowing the student editors the ability to publish the content if they choose.
This agreement lasted not even a month, the December checkpoint brought the first issues. The administration found a cut out photo of a senior to be inappropriate. There was an issue with the same pose, slightly varied, on the same spread. This was pointed out to administration and a discussion about the number of fingers being used in the pose ensued. In the end, we were able to publish both photos, though the experience left the staff feeling concerned for future checkpoints with the administration. The second checkpoint, this time for the January deadline, brought another round of issues with student publications and the school administration. This time over three student made works; a poem, a meme created for the yearbook, and a piece of student artwork.
The poem depicts a student’s perspective of the oppression of society that makes life feel repetitive and stifling. Administration’s issue was the poem, "depicts (our) school as a prison." explained that the message of the poem was about, “the deep underlying pressure in the oppression that society as a whole faces everyday in school, jobs and everyday life that can crush and take away pieces of our own mind.”
The piece of student artwork they took issue with an illustration of a man wearing a loincloth, similar to what Superman would wear, in which male reproductive parts appear to be visible, though fully covered by the loincloth. The work, which still hangs in the school hallway as a part of the featured artist display, along with others of similar themes, has been graded at the IA&T building for class credit, as well as displayed at the Independence square for the community to see.
The third and final issue that the administration had was over a digital meme made by an editor of the yearbook staff. It includes a bearsaying, "Dude, freshman are so lame,' Was freshman 4 months ago." The image, which sits on the Sophomore theme page in the yearbook, comes across, to the Admin, as 'derogatory' to a group of students, freshman, and is not appropriate to be used, while in truth, the meme was meant to make a statement about the way students interact with the other grade levels, and “freshman are so lame” is a common phrase heard from the sophomore, and other, classes each year. They requested that, either the quote be changed to fabulous or be taken out. This would change the meaning of the meme entirely.
The administration claimed that one of the reasons they wanted the new line of approval, was to stop any hurtful and disrespectful language or material that may appear in the yearbook. They didn’t want any surprises when the book was printed and distributed to students. They even went so far as to say, "most likely to be the next school shooter," could appear in the yearbook, and no one but administration would find that problematic and then the book would already be printed and in the hands of students and parents.
This statement suggests that administration is not worried about the yearbook itself, but more about the students that run it, and the advisors that oversee its production, It feels as if administrator does not trust the students that are in charge of student media, and the teachers that they hired, to keep the yearbook orderly and kind to its students. As a staff, we take a lot of pride in making our yearbook accurate, historical and inclusive, making it a point of pride for our school. We do not take our positions as student editors lightly. We know that with our first amendment rights to freedom of the press comes a greater responsibility to the community at large, and we work extremely hard every day to make sure we are putting in our best work and living up to the standards of journalism.
On top of the attempted censorship, the administration refused to follow the process outlined in board policy to remove things from the yearbook. Rather than taking it up with student editors, providing them with written explanations for their reservations and working through the process, administration told a staff member to remove these items. Pushback from the staff member is the only reason students were brought into the process and allowed to use their voice. Only because of pushback from the staff member, did administration address editors at all. They still did not follow the process, and requests to get their reservations in writing have gone ignored to this point.
The events of the last few months leave us all asking one thing. What does all of this mean for first amendment rights at William Chrisman?
For our journalism students, it means that the administration will try, and succeed in some cases,to limit the speech or expression of it’s students. In the case of ordinary students, their voices, which already have little impact in the school, could be completely silenced. There would not be a reliable news source, because of the pressure on student journalists to only include what administration finds acceptable, not allowing stories to be followed and told as they play out, with their own voices repressed by the faculty. The administration has proven that they are not afraid of attempting to repress the voices of student media, or the general student population. This has not been the first time an event like this has happened, with the backlash from students over the Yondr pouches in 2019. Student press is vital to a healthy and functioning school environment. "Freedom of the press is not just important to democracy. It is democracy," said Walter Cronkite. And we couldn't agree more. The aim of school is to prepare us to be citizens of this country when we become adults. Protecting our democracy is one of the most important jobs of our citizens. If we learn in high school that voices can be silenced when the powers at be are unhappy with those words, how will we ever protect our democracy from threats? How will we ever learn the power of our voice? And, most importantly, how can student journalists learn the ins and outs of writing and publishing if the right to do so is infringed upon?
In full, due to recent events at William Chrisman High School, it’s clear the administrative staff will attempt to infringe upon the rights of student journalists. The administration is attempting to censor the student press and disregard board policy that outlines the process for them to follow.
The two cases have different standings, each with their legal framework for schools to work within, based on whether the speech or expression is considered school-sponsored or not. Tinker explains that student journalists and teachers do not give up the right to free speech when that speech is not school-sponsored.
“It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
This means that as long as a student is speaking or expressing an opinion or belief of their own, not as part of a class or school program, school officials may not prohibit speech. The only way this speech can be limited is if it provides a disturbance to and for learning. This gives students and teachers the freedom to express their opinion and beliefs without punishment. Public schools follow this standard, giving students the room to exercise their free speech, as long as they follow the guidelines of what is and is not appropriate.
Hazelwood, in contrast, explains that schools have some authority over the expression of their students and staff, if the publication is sponsored by the school through funding or class time or other resources provided by the school.
“If mere incompatibility with the school’s pedagogical message were a constitutionally sufficient justification for the suppression of student speech, school officials could censor each of the students or student organizations.”
When the school sponsors the forum being used, administration is able to delay or stop publication of materials they find to be materially and substantially disruptive to the school environment or the learning process. The reason is because the publication is sponsored by the school through funding or class time or other resources provided by the school.
William Chrisman, by definition of our own board policy, follows the Tinker guideline, by defining student media as a public forum. That presents its journalism students the freedom to express their thoughts and ideas as long as they go by the guidelines in both their student handbooks and any district guidelines set. This standard has been upheld for at least the last 14 years, all under the same principal. In the 2021-22 year, administration in the building has proven unwilling to answer questions or support student media in various ways.
In early December of 2021, the administration expressed their desire for prior review, citing a process for all three high schools to give their books a final look over before they go in for print. This is not what the students and their teachers have gone through in previous years. Administration explained that they have this ability, explaining that, “...of course people have to look through your stuff,” when discussing the review. These actions were claimed to be under a board policy that they never identified to the advisor or chief editor, and refused to explain when asked about it.
This was not how the process worked in previous years, even under previous advisors of The Gleam. According to The Gleam’s yearbook representative, this kind of prior review does not happen at public schools in the region, though some private schools do have a review process. Public and private schools fall under different constitutional rules and are subject to different standards because of this. The editors and yearbook staff agreed, under the agreement that the administration involved would not overplay their role and allow students to continue working without interruption or objection over the material that does not offend the school rules.
This arrangement, which the administration confirmed would be the way the process works, would then follow school board policy and board regulation 2910 about challenged material. This policy gives the student editorial board the ability to make final decisions on content in the yearbook. If there are reservations from an advisor or administrator, the process must be followed for the adults in the process to get their reservations on record, while still allowing the student editors the ability to publish the content if they choose.
This agreement lasted not even a month, the December checkpoint brought the first issues. The administration found a cut out photo of a senior to be inappropriate. There was an issue with the same pose, slightly varied, on the same spread. This was pointed out to administration and a discussion about the number of fingers being used in the pose ensued. In the end, we were able to publish both photos, though the experience left the staff feeling concerned for future checkpoints with the administration. The second checkpoint, this time for the January deadline, brought another round of issues with student publications and the school administration. This time over three student made works; a poem, a meme created for the yearbook, and a piece of student artwork.
The poem depicts a student’s perspective of the oppression of society that makes life feel repetitive and stifling. Administration’s issue was the poem, "depicts (our) school as a prison." explained that the message of the poem was about, “the deep underlying pressure in the oppression that society as a whole faces everyday in school, jobs and everyday life that can crush and take away pieces of our own mind.”
The piece of student artwork they took issue with an illustration of a man wearing a loincloth, similar to what Superman would wear, in which male reproductive parts appear to be visible, though fully covered by the loincloth. The work, which still hangs in the school hallway as a part of the featured artist display, along with others of similar themes, has been graded at the IA&T building for class credit, as well as displayed at the Independence square for the community to see.
The third and final issue that the administration had was over a digital meme made by an editor of the yearbook staff. It includes a bearsaying, "Dude, freshman are so lame,' Was freshman 4 months ago." The image, which sits on the Sophomore theme page in the yearbook, comes across, to the Admin, as 'derogatory' to a group of students, freshman, and is not appropriate to be used, while in truth, the meme was meant to make a statement about the way students interact with the other grade levels, and “freshman are so lame” is a common phrase heard from the sophomore, and other, classes each year. They requested that, either the quote be changed to fabulous or be taken out. This would change the meaning of the meme entirely.
The administration claimed that one of the reasons they wanted the new line of approval, was to stop any hurtful and disrespectful language or material that may appear in the yearbook. They didn’t want any surprises when the book was printed and distributed to students. They even went so far as to say, "most likely to be the next school shooter," could appear in the yearbook, and no one but administration would find that problematic and then the book would already be printed and in the hands of students and parents.
This statement suggests that administration is not worried about the yearbook itself, but more about the students that run it, and the advisors that oversee its production, It feels as if administrator does not trust the students that are in charge of student media, and the teachers that they hired, to keep the yearbook orderly and kind to its students. As a staff, we take a lot of pride in making our yearbook accurate, historical and inclusive, making it a point of pride for our school. We do not take our positions as student editors lightly. We know that with our first amendment rights to freedom of the press comes a greater responsibility to the community at large, and we work extremely hard every day to make sure we are putting in our best work and living up to the standards of journalism.
On top of the attempted censorship, the administration refused to follow the process outlined in board policy to remove things from the yearbook. Rather than taking it up with student editors, providing them with written explanations for their reservations and working through the process, administration told a staff member to remove these items. Pushback from the staff member is the only reason students were brought into the process and allowed to use their voice. Only because of pushback from the staff member, did administration address editors at all. They still did not follow the process, and requests to get their reservations in writing have gone ignored to this point.
The events of the last few months leave us all asking one thing. What does all of this mean for first amendment rights at William Chrisman?
For our journalism students, it means that the administration will try, and succeed in some cases,to limit the speech or expression of it’s students. In the case of ordinary students, their voices, which already have little impact in the school, could be completely silenced. There would not be a reliable news source, because of the pressure on student journalists to only include what administration finds acceptable, not allowing stories to be followed and told as they play out, with their own voices repressed by the faculty. The administration has proven that they are not afraid of attempting to repress the voices of student media, or the general student population. This has not been the first time an event like this has happened, with the backlash from students over the Yondr pouches in 2019. Student press is vital to a healthy and functioning school environment. "Freedom of the press is not just important to democracy. It is democracy," said Walter Cronkite. And we couldn't agree more. The aim of school is to prepare us to be citizens of this country when we become adults. Protecting our democracy is one of the most important jobs of our citizens. If we learn in high school that voices can be silenced when the powers at be are unhappy with those words, how will we ever protect our democracy from threats? How will we ever learn the power of our voice? And, most importantly, how can student journalists learn the ins and outs of writing and publishing if the right to do so is infringed upon?
In full, due to recent events at William Chrisman High School, it’s clear the administrative staff will attempt to infringe upon the rights of student journalists. The administration is attempting to censor the student press and disregard board policy that outlines the process for them to follow.