Iowa City has some pretty amazing young people. Andrew Sullivan, the student editor at City High has a great head on his shoulders and should be commended for the heat he has been willing to take for the First Amendment.
The Gazette reports:
The editor of the City High School student newspaper said Thursday the paper will explore discrimination in its next issue despite the school's principal confiscating copies of the paper last week after a front-page story caused racial unrest.
"I think student publications should set a trend and let people know they'll take on controversial subjects," Adam Sullivan, 17, the executive editor of the Little Hawk, said.Sullivan spoke to about 160 student journalists at the Iowa High School Press Association's state conference at the University of Iowa. The high school senior described what he characterized as the censorship of the student-produced Little Hawk last Friday.
He said the next edition of the monthly paper would include stories about students who have faced discrimination."Not only will it cover the issue, but it will give students who feel they were discriminated against a voice," he said.
The paper printed the results of a survey completed by 350 of City High's 1,500 students on race, religion and sexuality. Among the findings was 13 percent of respondents had unfavorable views toward black students, while 2 percent had unfavorable views toward white students.
City High Principal Mark Hanson said he reluctantly removed the remaining papers from the school's halls at 1:30 p.m. after three near-fights over the story between students of different races.
Iowa law prevents the censorship of an official school newspaper unless it includes material that is obscene, libelous, slanderous, or encourages students to commit unlawful acts, violate lawful school regulations or causes the disruption of the orderly operation of the school.
Hanson said Thursday Little Hawk staffers are to meet today with students who question the story's appropriateness.
He said he hopes the student journalists take what they learn from that meeting and last week and use it to create a balanced report.
Hanson, who said he wants the newspaper to operate as normal, did not dispute that City High has racial issues.
"I think there certainly are at our school, as there would be at any school of our size that's as diverse as us," he said.
That diversity has been growing. City High's minority enrollment is more than 26 percent this school year, up from 14 percent in the 2002-03 school year, Associate Superintendent Jim Behle said. By comparison, Iowa's population is 95 percent white, according to the Census Bureau.
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Friday, October 26
Tuesday, September 25
Disagreeing Without Being Disagreeable
Civility is constantly challenged by those wishing to be heard. Sometimes they are heard, sometimes they are drowned out by a sea of objection. The controversy over the Colorado State University editorial (Taser this, F**K Bush) is that the larger point was missed by going for shock value. While sometimes it works (e.g., Hearst News' "Remember the Maine!" led to the Spanish-American War), this time it didn't.
Interestingly, the offending editorial has been purged from the CSU Collegian website, so you'll have to take my word that it made a valid point, albeit in a less than agreeable manner. Freedom of Speech was the premise of the editorial. A student in Florida was subdued by use of taser when, in the opinion of university police, he was being disruptive during a Q and A after a speech made by Senator John Kerry.
The editorial board at the Collegian was making the point that the person's first amendment rights were violated by the police's action. They also took aim at the President and the chilling effect his administration has had on civil liberties, but that was largely lost because many folks were stuck at the headline.
The editor of the Collegian, J.David McShane, is unrepentant for the editorial and, perhaps, he shouldn't be. An editorial is an opinion and in this case, an opinion endorsed by the Collegian's editorial board. Opinion is protected free speech, just as the opinions of those who were offended by the editorial with some 21 webpages of LTES and 870 plus comments on the Collegian Website.
The sad thing is the offending editorial has been removed so intelligent discussion of its merits are largely stifled. As Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." My addendum, whether I defend it or not, I will reserve the right to chastise both the opinion maker and the audience for missing the forest for the trees.
Does anyone disagree with the notion that free speech is something worth defending? Should we be in danger of physical attack over the words we say? Like the word choice or not, the editorial and the student in Florida challenge our beliefs and force us to look at expressed opinions without the filter of our experiences.
Let us hope that after the cacaphony simmers down that cooler heads will look at the serious issue of free speech and we can have an intelligent discussion of ideas.
Interestingly, the offending editorial has been purged from the CSU Collegian website, so you'll have to take my word that it made a valid point, albeit in a less than agreeable manner. Freedom of Speech was the premise of the editorial. A student in Florida was subdued by use of taser when, in the opinion of university police, he was being disruptive during a Q and A after a speech made by Senator John Kerry.
The editorial board at the Collegian was making the point that the person's first amendment rights were violated by the police's action. They also took aim at the President and the chilling effect his administration has had on civil liberties, but that was largely lost because many folks were stuck at the headline.
The editor of the Collegian, J.David McShane, is unrepentant for the editorial and, perhaps, he shouldn't be. An editorial is an opinion and in this case, an opinion endorsed by the Collegian's editorial board. Opinion is protected free speech, just as the opinions of those who were offended by the editorial with some 21 webpages of LTES and 870 plus comments on the Collegian Website.
The sad thing is the offending editorial has been removed so intelligent discussion of its merits are largely stifled. As Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." My addendum, whether I defend it or not, I will reserve the right to chastise both the opinion maker and the audience for missing the forest for the trees.
Does anyone disagree with the notion that free speech is something worth defending? Should we be in danger of physical attack over the words we say? Like the word choice or not, the editorial and the student in Florida challenge our beliefs and force us to look at expressed opinions without the filter of our experiences.
Let us hope that after the cacaphony simmers down that cooler heads will look at the serious issue of free speech and we can have an intelligent discussion of ideas.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)