Friday, July 30, 2010

Editorial

Little over three weeks ago the Missoula County Public Schools Board of Trustees considered a new policy concerning students’ publications and the Board’s ability to restrict their work. By using the word “socially inappropriate” as the basis for their intervention with students’ work, the Board could interfere with more pieces than the Hazelwood act set in 1988 has ever had the potential to.
The Board is essentially increasing its reach and influence on its schools’ publications by passing this. If the Hazelwood act tied up student journalists this policy would literally shackle student journalists. Because of the wording the Board is essentially exploiting a loophole that allows them to suppress almost any sort of content they deem harmful or radical to the Missoula Public Schools. This is criminal to withdraw students’ rights. To limit student journalists from writing what they believe is necessary is akin to spitting in their faces. It is a form of ageism, discrimination based upon individuals’ age, to infer that with youth comes haphazard reporting and irresponsible synthesis of material. This sort of control due to lack of respect or trust is unacceptable.
Since “Socially inappropriate” is not legally defined the possibility for media to meet this criterion is exponential. Therefore the Board has complete power over every publication. This is worsened by a fact that Elizabeth Kaleva, the school district’s attorney, openly admits.
“It’s not common knowledge, frankly, that students have First Amendment rights," she said. "And [it’s] not uncommon for people to say, 'Well, just shut them down.' It's hard for me to explain that we can't do that -- and we don't."
The key portion there is that people are unaware of their rights. Students should not lay back and accept these conditions because they are unaware of their rights.
To avert this journalistic sacrilege so to speak the Missoula County Public Schools Board of Trustees must consider this policy in a new light. It is not a policy of protection but a policy of control.

No comments:

Post a Comment