OCR Text |
Show (Ey (stops By Brian Gray Davis County school officials received good news earlier this month in the form of a U.S. Supreme Court decision.. .But I'm not sure it was good news for the rest of us. The Hazlewood, Mo. "free press" case is hardly one that whets the general public's appetite. In fact, most parents will support the court's decision as a return to proper discipline in a valued-muddied system where boys wear earrings and girls talk like professional wrestlers. But the issue concerns freedom, not irresponsibility. The school newspaper articles the Missouri principal censored were well-written, journalistically-sound pieces on sensitive subjects: sub-jects: teen pregnancy and the effect of divorce on students. There were no scatological words or scurrilous assumption-s...The assumption-s...The articles wouldn't lead to student riots, pupil protests, lawsuits or a lapse of discipline... The articles were hardly of the type to make the MTV Generation blush. The problem was not that the newspaper was malicious; neither was it that the principal was a Fascist. No, the problem was simply that the principal might get a telephone call, a nasty interruption which might force him to provide an explanation to the caller. The Supreme Court majority agreed with the principal and showed their ignorance of press freedom. But the justices also showed their ignorance of some high school administrators. In the decision, Justice Byron White said that censorship was related to "legitimate pedagogical concerns". ..But, in reality, the only concern here was the annoying ringing of a telephone. A similar incident occurred at Highland High in the mid-1960's. mid-1960's. The school newspaper, the "Rambler" published an article satirizing the then popular song, "Ballad of the Green Berets." The article was not inflammatory, but it offended the "God and Country" sensibilities of the principal who quickly demanded that the student editor not distribute the newspaper. The editor refused and the principal countered by suspending him from the newspaper. Why was the article published? 0 "It grew out of a student history forum in which a Green Beret spoke in glowing terms of how many 'gooks' he had killed," says the student editor, now a 39-year old writer living in Davis County. "I was not even opposed to the Vietnam War at that time, but I was concerned about the soldier's blatant promotion of death. I figured the school publication should show the other side of the story. If students were forced to listen to the pro-war side, then they should be allowed to read the other side, too. "Eventually the principal was forced to reinstate me as editor after my dismissal received unwanted publicity in the daily and weekly newspapers. The experience didn't radicalize me but it made me a more firm believer in the protection of a student press. Any attempt to censor student writing is an indication that the principal thinks students are stupid. Well, if they're stupid, the principal's school is doing a pitifully poor job." As I said, the editor now lives in Davis County. That editor was me. In light of the court decision, few principals will approach the school newspaper with a meat axe. The current crop of high school administrators in Davis County are fairly broad-minded, willing to allow most forms of student expression. In fact, articles on teen pregnancy have appeared in several of Davis County's high school newspapers and the principals have been supportive. But the court decision does provide a bludgeon for the future lazy administrator unwilling to explain constitutional principles to an ill-informed fringe group constituent. It will be easier to pull out a red marking pen than answer an irritating telephone. So the court decision makes me uneasy. If you care about freedom, it should make you uneasy, too. No, students don't have the same exact rights as adults. But neither should a principal carry a muzzle. . |