SPIKE

THE RABID
MEDIA
WATCHDOG


Snohomish Student Press Stifled
News of Sex Harrassment Allegations May Have Trouble Seeing Print in the Arrowhead

by Natalia Jenkins
Free Press Contributor

Most Americans take freedom of the press very seriously. But how many Americans realize that the government has stripped the full enjoyment of this right from all high schools across the nation?
In 1988, a Supreme Court decision called Hazelwood School District vs Kuhlmeier gave school administrators the right to censor articles "so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." Administrators are thereby allowed to censor any article if they feel it will disrupt the educational process.
Snohomish High School is a prime example of how Hazelwood can be abused. Last October, students became aware that one of the vice-principals, Greg Cox, was no longer reporting to work. The school never said a word to the students or the parents concerning his whereabouts. The Arrowhead, the school's newspaper, investigated this. Administrators and district employees were very secretive about the whole matter, but Arrowhead staff was able to quote Principal Larry Aalbu saying that the school had hired a private investigator. But that was all that he would say. The Arrowhead printed this story without any intervention by administration.
But the Arrowhead didn't stop there. The paper obtained the public letter from Superintendent Ginny Tresvant to Greg Cox releasing him from his administrative duties after allegations of sexual harassment of three female staff members and of professional misconduct. Arrowhead staff member Amber Holmes wrote an article detailing the letter and the current proceedings. Also, the Arrowhead wrote an editorial criticizing the district's handling of Mr.Cox's situation.
Snohomish High School Principal Larry Aalbu and Superintendent Ginny Tresvant arranged a meeting with Amber Holmes and myself about the articles that the Arrowhead wished to publish. They requested preview of the articles and made clear that they would censor any reference to the letter and all examples of Mr. Cox's alleged sexual harassment and professional misconduct. The following day Principal Aalbu issued a memo stating that any article mentioning Cox was to be turned into administration. The Arrowhead declined to submit the articles for preview and took the matter to the school board, who sided with Aalbu and Tresvant.
Under the faculty advisorship of Ms. Lisa Stettler, The Arrowhead had never turned in an article to administration for preview and possible censorship. Therefore, to the staff, this was not an option. The minute the Arrowhead handed those articles over, the paper would be setting a precedent where all articles written on sensitive issues would be subjected to censorship.
Although Hazelwood is a very vague law, it does say that high school newspapers that are public forums for student expression do have a greater First Amendment right than those that are not. The Arrowhead has established itself as a limited public forum because it does print letters from students and articles on highly sensitive issues. Snohomish School District has, for the most part, been tolerant until now.
The district asked to preview the articles because its attorney advised it to do so. Superintendent Tresvant expressed concern that the articles may be libelous, may invade the privacy of others, and would disrupt the educational process. The Arrowhead maintains none of these claims are true. Two lawyers, one from a Seattle firm and another from the Student Press Law Center in Wa., D.C., assured the Arrowhead and the school district that the articles were not libelous. The articles did not invade the privacy of others because the only name they mentioned was Mr. Cox, and his name was already released in a prior Seattle Times article. Lastly, the administration did not give reasons explaining how the articles would disrupt the educational process.
Administrators such as Tresvant may fear that if they allow articles on sensitive subjects in the school newspaper, it will imply district opinions or policies as well. This is not the case. Administrators need to realize that high school newspapers are not public relations publications meant to represent the school and its viewpoints.
The Arrowhead has recently obtained a lawyer to fight for the right to publish the stories as they stand. Unfortunately, the staff may have to submit the articles to preview, under protest. If the administration actually censors the articles, the Arrowhead's legal case may become even stronger. Whether or not the Arrowhead obtains the right to publish the articles, we will fight for the Hazelwood to be revised. It needs to be written more precisely so that misunderstandings like this will not continue to occur.


Natalia Jenkins is a Snohomish High School senior and an editor-in-chief of the Arrowhead.



Spike Growls About Ethical Double Standards

Journalist and activist Sandy Nelson has lost her seven year battle to be a reporter who exercises political speech rights.
On February 20, the Washington State Supreme Court held that the Tacoma Morning News Tribune was within its rights when it took Nelson, a well-regarded education reporter, off the education beat due to her off-hours work in opposing an anti-gay rights initiative in Tacoma. Nelson is an out lesbian, and is an active in the Freedom Socialist Party and Radical Women.
The News Tribune's management argued that Nelson's involvement jeopardized her ability to maintain journalistic objectivity - even though management had no evidence supporting such fears, and despite the fact that Nelson did not write about gay and lesbian issues.
Nelson argued that the newspaper's actions violated the state constitution and at least one state law, the Fair Campaign Practices Act. The law says that employers may not discriminate against an employee for "in any way supporting or opposing a candidate, ballot proposition, political party, or political committee."
However, Justice Richard Sanders, who wrote the decision, found that the law could not constitutionally apply to the press because the first amendment prohibits the government from ordering a publication to print the work of a certain reporter. Moreover, the paper's interest in maintaining its "credibility" falls within its first amendment rights.
Nelson's lawyers argued that in other media employment cases, courts afforded newspapers no first amendment protection in a range of employment matters, such as retaliation against union organizing.
However, the court distinguished such cases: "Here, TNT implemented a code of ethics which it designed in good faith to foster the newspaper's integrity and credibility. Case law unambiguously allows a news publication to follow a code designed to limit conflicts of interest which may diminish publication credibility. TNT adopted such a code. Freedom of the press leaves such decisions to the press, not the legislature or the courts."
So what does this case mean? It's really a case about professional ethics. Washington employers cannot take action based on their employees' political activities without violating the Fair Campaign Practices Act. However, the first amendment appears to grant media employers an exception, lest the courts dictate to the press what they can and cannot publish.
Spike is no fan of jack-booted agents of the state giving orders to the press. But more often, jack-booted publishers wield "ethics codes" as truncheons of discriminatory pretext against reporters and editors who won't fall into line.
Media outlets play fast and loose with their "ethics codes." Editors and reporters are people, with opinions and political causes like anyone else. Management rarely invoke "ethics codes" except when convenient to their own interests. For example, reporters sometimes accept "payola" in tacit return for favorable stories, and no one gives a damn. But if the story or the writer pisses off management, then the ethics codes kick in. Publishers frequently participate in civic organizations or the Rotary Club, and those functions involve political issues. But that's the difference between owning the press and working for it.
As Sandy Nelson has observed, there is no small irony in Justice Sanders' opinion. A conservative jurist of the libertarian persuasion, Sanders may face censure for his participation before an Olympia anti-abortion rally last year. Sandy Nelson covered education, not gay rights. Will Sanders recuse himself from the court's next abortion case?

- Eric Nelson


For a historical perspective on the Sandy Nelson case, follow past WFP coverage by starting here:
"Outcry Keeps News Tribune Boss From Taking State Post"
and then follow the links at the end of each article to get to the next piece.






Post No Bills

Meanwhile back in speech-friendly Seattle, activist and musician Vivian McPeak went to trial January 31 in Municipal court for violating Seattle's anti-postering ordinance. McPeak was postering last year for an event held by the Youth International Party. The cops nabbed his posters and fined him $250.
The city argues that posters on poles represent a danger to utility workers who must scale them for repairs. Right. More likely, the posters clash with the City Council's telephone pole color scheme. They are so full of it, all they can see is brown.





Research Before You Post

Spike broadcasts an appeal to users of the Internet. It is a powerful organizing tool. Use it wisely and responsibly or postings will cease to be taken seriously.
Case in point: In January, a posting went out calling for responses to a Federal Communications Commission notice of proposed rule making. The FCC was apparently considering applications by local telephone carriers to impose per-minute calling charges on net users who access net service providers.
Upon receiving this posting, Spike looked up the FCC's notice in the Federal Register and found no reference to per-minute billing fees. Instead, Spike found many pages of telco goobledygook. (Telecommunications law is exceedingly complex.)
According to the trade rag Communications Daily, the FCC has considered access charges but the December 24 notice by FCC said that such charges were no longer an option.
Nonetheless, the FCC's e-mail address was deluged with thousands of form e-mail responses in opposition to the local carriers' supposed application. By law, all of those e-mails have to entered into the record. Oh well, democracy ain't cheap.
In the future, Spike says research before you post.



[Home] [This Issue's Directory] [WFP Index] [WFP Back Issues] [E-Mail WFP]

Contents on this page were published in the March/April, 1997 edition of the Washington Free Press.
WFP, 1463 E. Republican #178, Seattle, WA -USA, 98112. -- WAfreepress@gmail.com
Copyright © 1997 WFP Collective, Inc.