Towards the end of April, several Outlook editors and staffers had the privilege of attending the National High School Student Journalism Convention in San Francisco. Of particular interest to me was a workshop titled “Deciding Editorial Policies.”
The workshop opened with this question: what is the purpose of a student newspaper? For the Outlook, that question has many answers, ranging from community awareness and outreach to the discussion of current events, all of which are outlined in our mission statement. The rest of the schools attending were either unsure of their purpose or stated that the mission of a school newspaper run by students was to serve as a mouthpiece for the administration. While I was shocked and confused, the leader of the discussion group explained that this was what he normally encountered among a group of high school newspapers.
The discussion also covered censorship. After a brief discussion of what “censorship” entails, the group was surveyed for any instances of faculty or teachers suppressing content of any form from being published. While dozens of hands shot up to share accounts of principals and deans trying to exercise unfair control over articles or photos, one stood out from the rest. A girl from a public high school in Arizona explained that her principal reviewed each issue of their newspaper before it was sent to the printer. On one deadline, the principal deemed half of that issue’s content “not appropriate to publish” because articles such as the one about the volleyball team losing did not convey good news to the school community; in other words, they didn’t tell cheerful stories.
While no other students shared stories that were quite as shocking, administrative censorship was commonplace. It was startling as Aragon receives so much support and respect from the administration as well as the greater community.
Granted, the trust of one’s school administration comes with responsibility; just because speech is protected for all Americans does not mean it’s in good judgment (or legal) to print articles that are libelous, defaming, or derogatory. While it is understandable for administrators to want to ensure the best interests of their schools, acting as an overbearing force can have some detrimental consequences.
First, it conveys the idea that impartial journalism is acceptable. In the instance of the Arizona high school, while it may be discouraging to read about the defeats of classmates on the volleyball court, we as a society should expect the truth to be published, even if it is not the most enjoyable to read. A growing conflict today is the reliability of news sources. What better way to ensure that the next generation of journalists is impartial and unbiased than to give them the freedom to publish the truth? The suppression of content by administrators will only lead to students self-censoring, making them uncomfortable when it comes to writing anything that may provoke a negative response.
Second, working on a school newspaper is both widely accessible and gives students the feeling of a real, day-to-day working environment. By giving students as little freedom as possible, administrators infringe upon this opportunity to act maturely and responsibly, as if they were in control of their own newspaper. Newspapers should promote growth in students. Instead, students are pretending to lead, but actually exclusively following the direction of an adviser and administration.
Third, newspapers that are not overly restricted foster more intellectual content. When the students have the liberty to report freely on current events and issues, they will pick topics in which they find the most interest. Genuine interest yields genuine content, which strengthens the newspaper as a whole and helps give it a stronger presence in the community.
In all, student journalists, when given the freedom, have the capability of shaping and informing their communities. A little trust can go a long way.
