Is That Legal?

This would be Press Freedom (who isn't picky with a Law Prof? ;->), but yes the complexities of the issues and the mess behind it were more or less discussed at out dinner table too. The problem for us is that no one knew why the paper was pulled. One concern was that amongst the articles was one critical of the overfiltering by the school's internet filter which keep kids from getting at material that they need.
We had to read the News and Observer to get the story. In the meantime, our son was left wondering what parts of the paper were so offensive that the paper had to be pulled. That confusion is a kind of chilling effect. A quick and clear explanation needs to be given so that this incidence can become a teaching moment.

I think you're missing the point here, Eric. As the UNC journalism professor who has been helping out in the Smith Middle School class, permission was asked for with the students who were quoted in the stories. In fact, one of the students involved in the bus fight is in the journalism class.

This has been the same situation in past semesters as well. In the fall, the Smith newspaper had a story about illegal immigrants who were students. The student reporter made sure that the parents of the students he talked to were fine with them being quoted in the story, and both the teacher and myself have held discussions with the students about this.

Also, the Student Press Law Center attorneys who have been talking to the director of the North Carolina Scholastic Media Association this morning say that the Smith newspaper has done nothing wrong. The privacy concerns are with the administrators and the teachers, not between students.

My oldest son is also an eighth grader at Smith, and he knew everything about these incidents. Since both involved boys, I these incidents were discussed among that community at the school in great detail. Because you have a daughter, they may not have been discussed as much. But they were widely known. I don't think that you can say that just because your daughter didn't know it wasn't widely known.

Chris, I'm not sure what the point is that I'm missing.

You say that "permission was asked for with the students who were quoted in the stories." From whom was the permission asked? From the students, or from their parents?

If my daughter had been the target of a school disciplinary proceeding, and her classmates said to her, "Can we publish a story about it?" and she said "sure," and that story then went into a school publication that went out into the homes of every student at Smith, I think I'd be pretty unhappy about it, and I'm sure I'd want the chance to talk with my daughter first about a whole host of issues before her name was published. So did the reporters contact the parents of the kids they wrote about? Or just the kids themselves?

As for the advice being offered by attorneys for the Student Press Law Center, I remain quite skeptical. A middle school is offering a journalism class that is preparing and publishing a newspaper. That newspaper presents itself as the school's newspaper. I would imagine that a teacher reviews the contents of the newspaper before publication, and that administrators do too (or at least have the right to). The newspaper is distributed in the school building.

Is it really the advice of these attorneys that in this context, the contents of the paper are not in any way the school's own communications, but are merely conversation among students? That the dissemination of the identities of students involved in disciplinary proceedings by a school-sponsored newspaper carrying the school's name is not in any way a dissemination by the school?

Obviously, the law can't and isn't going to stop kids' rumor-spreading in the hallways and bathrooms. But to suggest that these newspaper stories are just kids talking to other kids strains belief.

And finally, Chris, the fact that your son knew everything about these incidents really means nothing at all. The point that's being made is that the privacy concerns for the affected students are overblown, or moot, because the details of the incidents were "generally known."

My daughter's testimony shows that this is decidedly not true. And what we're talking about here is the right of students to maintain the privacy of their tangles with the school disciplinary mechanism. It seems to me that if the school facilitates the dissemination of that information even to one person who didn't already know about it (and plainly, it reached many more than just one in this case), then the privacy rights have been abridged.

Think of it this way: suppose a child in the school had HIV, and that lots of his classmates knew it. And suppose that the school newspaper published a story headlined, "Eighth Grader Soldiers On With HIV." Would anyone seriously maintain that the confidentiality of his condition was not undermined by the publication of this story and its distribution to at least some students who didn't already know about it?

Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)

Finding, among other things, that educators do not offend First Amendment by exercising editorial control over style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities (i.e., the school paper as part of the journalism course), as long as the educators' actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.

The above captioned case involved a high school paper. It seems to me that the principal would have even greater latitude in deciding what legitimate pedogogical concerns were in a middle school.

Eric,

I'm with you on this one: there's no exception for reporters under the age of majority. If an adult newspaper would have been in trouble for publishing names without parental permission, then a school newspaper can't do it either. Particularly, as you note, because the school has an obligation to protect the confidentiality of grades and disciplinary issues.

If memory serves, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the school has the right to pre-censor student publications, so there's really no conflict here except an organizational snafu.

Ahem. Do we know other than from Eric's assertion that the parents were not notified? Other than the principal saying that she didn't know if the parents were notified for sure. I don't think we do.
There is no reporting other than that at all and Chris hasn't addressed it except to say that the Student Press Law Center supports the paper on this. Since the SPLC most likely knows Hazelwood (and the following cases which have weakened student press freedom even more that), one could possibly assume that the parents were notified as required.
BTW the school is on one week break so the students have no idea why the paper was pulled -- except from what they read in the other newspapers. I don't think the students are learning about press responsibilities just now, mostly they are learning that authority can crush them without explanation.

The Daily Tar Heel has some additional (not much additional) in their article this morning.

Eric: Your daughter may not have known about the incidents because she is in 6th grade; in the 7th and 8th grades, these incidents were circulated as was the usual gossip.

According to the N&O, the UNC School of Journalism pays for the Cyclone Scoop. Does this change the rights of the paper in any way? (Honest question, I'm curious)

As I told Eric in a private e-mail last night, the Smith journalism student asked to interview the students about what they had done, with the understanding that the students would get permission from their parents. This is the procedure that the paper has followed in past stories. The following week, the students said it was OK to be interviewed.

In addition, I think it's important to point out that last year, The Cyclone Scoop published a story about three boys who received in-school suspension for skipping school. To me, this is a mroe serious offense than kissing your girlfriend in the hallway. The skipping school story mentioned the boys' names and quoted one of them. The principal and the rest of the faculty said not one word about that story violating any student privacy issues. What's the difference now? Nothing.

Ignoring the fact that I believe that the students in the current situation acted properly by requesting and receiving permission, the school set a precedent last year by not questioning the publication of names of students who had received similar punishment.

What is actually going on here is an overzealous school administrator and faculty who don't like the teacher who oversees the journalism class and the newspaper because they have pushed to expose some of the problems at the school, such as a mold problem that is being ignored.

If the teachers and the administration had taken the time to become involved in the journalism class, then they would know that the students and the teacher care deeply about the school and want it to be great. But since the journalism class was given to its current teacher two years ago after the former teacher quit, I have seen very little support or help from the rest of the faculty and the administration. That's why I go once a week to help out the current teacher and had the School of Journalism and Mass Communication offer to publish the paper.

It's embarrassing to see such actions being taken against students and a teacher truly enjoying what they do.

Have we forgotten that the way this country was created and became great was by exposing wrongdoing, primarily through the printed word?

The lesson these students are taking away is that an administration and some school faculty members can band together to stifle criticism. The students in this class know very well that there are a lot of teachers and administrators in the school who don't like the newspaper, and yet they persevere. I admire them for ignoring all of that in pursuit of the truth.

Smith student, the question of who pays for the printing of the Cyclone Scoop is irrelevant. It's still the school newspaper, created under the supervision of a Smith teacher, reviewable by the school administration before publication.

Here's a link to all sorts of information on the law: http://splc.org/legalresearch.asp?id=77. Here's a portion from those Student Press Law Center materials that sums up what I mentioned:
"Increasingly, secondary school administrators have begun to claim that FERPA prohibits student media, especially online student media, from publishing the name or photo of a student without written consent from the student's parent. After a close examination of the Act's language and its interpretation, however, it is clear that school administrators stand on shaky legal ground in extending FERPA's reach to the student media."

And here's information from the Student Press Law Center on whether a minor may give consent for inclusion in an article:
Consent as a Defense
With all four forms of invasion of privacy, consent is a valid defense. However, if you intend to rely on consent as your defense to a privacy claim you must make sure that you obtain the consent from someone with a legal right to give it and be candid with your subject about what information you want to use and how you intend to use it. While not necessary to be valid, consent is always easiest to prove when it is in writing.
Can a Minor Give Valid Consent?
Consent is and should be effective if a minor is "capable of appreciating the nature, extent and probable consequences of the conduct (to which he consents)," even if parental consent is not obtained or expressly refused. Restatement of Torts (Second) Sec. 892A. This reasoning is in line with what courts have said when determining whether a child is responsible for the injuries he causes, his crimes and confessions to crimes. When obtaining consent from a minor, it is essential that a student journalist take extra precautions to insure that the minor is fully informed of what is taking place. While most minor high school students probably can provide valid consent, most elementary-aged children, because of their immaturity, probably cannot.

Not only did I witness the Bus Incident, but I heard it too. And let me tell you, that kid was swearing about four words a second.
Not pretty.

The first question I have (as one who used to be a journalist) is what the editorial practice is, and what amount of prior restraint the administration of the school is allowed.

When I was in high school (I'll put aside my college paper, as the students being adult changes some of how the issue is seen, which is part of your question/complaint), the administration was specifially barred from reviewing the paper before publication. The advisor looked at it, and I suspect he could have pulled stories, though the practice was that the advisor [which changed while I was there] didn't, save in the event of libel.

I don't know the specifics of the situation at the school, but I do know that part of the reason for the policy in Calif. (which we were told was state law) was to prevent schools from squelching real reporting by the students. We had a case where the principal didn't like things being written and demanded to see the page proofs prior to publication.

It was denied. A small stink was raised and the district told him he was out of line.

The comments made by Chris Roush, seem consistent with my general experience with shcool papers. The administration is hands off, until they start to come under scrutiny, at which point the slightest provocations lead to all sorts of flap.

TK

As for the school paper being the "voice" of the school, that depends.

At my high school, and my college, it wasn't. The administration didn't have any say in the content (more so at my college, where the advisors had no veto power over anything we chose to publish). This is a big question (and one various colleges have been solving by re-organising the journalism departments to get some direct control, so they can be the actual publisher, and so kill stories they think reflect poorly on the school, or its managers).

If the Administration has no say, nor input, in the day to day running of the paper, then it isn't the official organ of the school.

TK

Where is the reasonable expectation of privacy in an attack upon a driver that was witnessed by a busload of kids? It's reasonable to accept that the disciplinary proceeding bears with it some expectation of privacy, but surely the attack itself doesn't. Thus, reporting the names of those kids, and their actions in public, doesn't strike me as presenting a privacy problem any more than reporting that Senior John Doe scored 11 points in the basketball game, which also occurred on school property in full view of students.

Most reporters make their living digging up information that institutional authority would rather keep secret. Their ability to publish this kind of information is fairly well-protected by the law.

All of this points up the problem of trying to publish a newspaper sponsored and paid for by a school that has made it part of its curriculum. Whether or not this is legally sufficient to claim that the newspaper is an official organ of the school -- and, thus, must abide by the privacy rules that bind school officials -- is beyond my ability to judge. But I will say that the arrangement makes it difficult to be independent in any case, whether or not the administration is pulling copies of the paper. The best solution -- evident to me in the fact that most of the best college newspapers in the country are privately owned and operated -- would be to sever the institutional ties of high school newspapers and produce them privately and independently of the school. Certainly, school officials could restrict the distribution of such a newspaper, but there would be other ways of reaching the readership.

Independence in media of all sorts -- print, broadcast, electronic -- is the essential quality. The sad thing about this situation is that the student journalists are having the experience of challenging the administration only to suffer consequences and, ultimately, see their work destroyed through the assertion of authority by the institution they're covering. As someone interested in journalism education, I for one would rather see journalism taught in an environment in which it is possible to be skeptical of the institution being covered and without ever being forced to defer to its authority.

(Occasionally a journalist should always consider deferring to the wishes of the institution if by doing so you serve a greater good or avoid needlessly hurting someone. Had the school allowed the newspapers to remain distributed, a discussion about the responsibilities that go along with the rights protected by the First Amendment could have been conducted by the school by using the two stories as teaching points. Both the young journalists and their readers would have been better off for it. Alas, that opportunity was squandered.)

This kind of situation does not encourage a new generation of skeptical muckrakers and hellraisers, which we sorely need. More likely, it's another nudge down the road to the kind of passive, credulous, authority-dazzled reporting and writing that plagues much media, especially our national press corps.

Duncan Murrell
Photo Editor and Columnist
The Rockville High School Rampage, 1984-1986
Rockville, Maryland

p.s. Finally, newspapers are far more vulnerable to this kind of censorship than blogs are. Had these stories been published on a student's private blog, there would have been very little the administration could have done about it. Maybe this is your ultimate program, Eric: to help drive newspapers into the ground and promote the world of you and your bloggy pals. You devious, beautiful bastard! ; )

I just don't think it's fair. We all worked very very very hard for this paper to come out. I know about all the problems with using the info we did, but we got permission from everyone we interviewed and talked to. I just don't think it's fair. Just like Jacob H. said, these are OUR rights. I agree with what everyone from the staff said in the news & observer. Especially when it was said this is supposed to be an experience for the people on the staff, and the students who read the paper. Most of the people on the staff wrote great articles that didn't even get to be read. The teachers swept those papers up so fast, no one saw the great time and effort that was put into half of the articles. Teachers also complained about some of the articles, (that didn't even make it to the news.) For example, the "Why Yoga" article. That teacher was so mad at the journalism teacher and students. There was nothing wrong with the article either... just students point of views on doing yoga in ACTING class. That's it. I don't even have a problem with that. However, this is a SCHOOl newspaper. The point of a SCHOOl newspaper in my point of view, is so people can see whats up, whats new, whos doing what, and what people are liking and disliking about some of their classes. That way people can get out what they think teachers or other students need to know. We are the ones there EVERYDAY. Teachers are the ones that have to deal with us EVERYDAY. It's not all fun and games, so we should beable to make the best of it, and express what we would like to change, or keep on doing. So the teacher(s) who is/are complaining about that article, or other articles... it's really not right. Especially to take their frustration out on the students. That is just not cool! Sometimes teachers cause more drama, and act younger than we do. And let me tell you, Smith Middle can get dramatic. I don't want to "re-do" the paper. It was fine how it was. The Cyclone Scoop Staff is a team. T E A M. We are going to follow through and do this together. The paper is perfect, and it will stay like that. I don't ca- WE don't care.

--a member of the Cyclone Scoop Staff!--

I really hope that staff chick is real. You are the most awesome eighth grader ever. The fact that you care so much is very cool.

And Eric, I love your blog, but I can't take these privacy concerns that seriously. I'm tempted to just say you should lighten up. So the parents (possibly) didn't consent. So what? These kids got their consent from kids to post not very private things.

There are far bigger breaches of privacy going on today, and we can fix all of them without kiboshing what sounds like an excellent student newspaper.

Being a member of the Cyclone Scoop staff, I've had a lot of fun reading this. It's always great to read things about stuff you've done, especially when they stir up controversy. The school's administration collected these papers one by one. Why? For an incident mentioned that most people will be able to tell you what happened, down to the color of the shirt a student was wearing?

In response to Eric, with all due respect, it does not matter if your daughter doesn't know the name of the student in question. It's still known by a large number of students. I also like how you discount other students knowing what happened, maintaining that your daughter doesn't know, so it isn't common knowledge.

Kudos to Chris Roush for sticking up for us. We broke no laws. Gossip spreads faster than the avian flu in Smith Middle School. It's ridiculous to shut our eyes and pretend like no one knows about it, and blast our paper when they report on something that the majority of students already know about.

This is bogus, the students who got thier names mentioned in the storys said that they were alright with it. So I think that shouldnt need any parent permission becuese Im sure that they already no what happended. Also this is also a good way to make the students act better. They would be willing to do it beforehand, but if they no that thier name could be in the school newspaper they probbaly wont want to do it anymore. I was handing out the papers to the classes and when the teacher and the principal said for us to collect them agian. The 6th graders were in class, so what i heard is that the administers took time away from the 6th graders classess to collect the paper. Whats up with that? I think that we should be able to write our own newspaper, without 2 much interference. I could see if we made a story about someone student with HIV, or some kind of deadly illness. We had a great time making this newspaper and the teacher of this class had a great time doing this newspaper. We worked hard on this and we shouldnt of have this taken away...

First, let's make in clear that we, the Smith Middle School journelism Staff, have no hard feelings towards the Principal, or any other member of the administrators who were part of taking up the paper.

Obviously, the problem is with the confidentiality of minors, but is what we're doing any different then what our administrators are? At the end of the day, our Principal calls everyone who received detention into the office to get slips. They are telling the whole school who has done something wrong and got ISS or OSS. Is that any different then us telling the school in our newspaper that someone committed a crime? The person in question definitly consented (he was in our class and a fellow reporter) and if he had a problem about it, would definitly been able to express his concern. In the second incident, the person in question not even consented, but agreed to take a picture of it for the paper. There is no doubt in my mind and in everyones that he gave his permission.

Here's another way to look at it. Is it ok for a kid to print our party invitations and hand them out to his classmates. That is essentially what we did. We created it, printed it out, and passed it out by our own means. Just like a birthday invitation. But there's nothing wrong with a birthday invitation.

I agree our administrators have the right to look at our paper BEFORE we publish it. It has been sitting on our teachers documents, which they have access to. If they were to express concern pryor to the release of the paper, they would be entitled to make suggestions, but because they didn't care enough about our paper or our journelism class, they waited until we expended all of the effort our.

Finally, it says nothing in our student adgenda about confidentiality or censorship. Our school should be spending more time making sure there are no PDA or Fights at our school, then making sure we don't right about it.

I am a Cyclone Staff Member, If you would like me to email a copy of the paper, just ask me

Thanks Cyrus- and yes, it was a great paper. It's a shame that no one was able to read it.

The staff of the Cyclone Scoop put forth tremendous effort to bring the paper together, including several hours worth of editing. In the end, the names were overlooked because they were common knowledge. I'd like to point out also that the articles were not written to humiliate students in any way- many people against the paper's use of names seem to have the idea that we didn't conceal identity due to some wild ulterior motives. On the contrary, we gave names (*with permission) because, dare I say it again, it was common knowledge.

* as noted by Mr. Roush, the consent given by the two individuals named was within legal boundaries.

Again, I'd like to mention that we weren't aiming for exploitation. During interviews we came across one person who requested that they not be named, and we stood by that and didn't mention them.

Please continue to post comments. What everyone has to say about our paper is most interesting.

Murphay, KL
Journalist of the Smith Cyclone Newspaper

The Myers, thanks for commenting. I'm concerned that you are misunderstanding my point about my daughter's not knowing about one of the incidents in question.

My point, to be clear about it, is this: the school adminstration has a legal responsibility to prevent the public dissemination of certain kinds of information about students, and they have that very same responsibility to prevent the dissemination of those kinds of information even if lots and lots of kids at school already know it.

(Important caveat: because I have not read the articles in question, I don't know whether they actually contained the sort of information that the school administration has a duty to keep private. My point is that if the articles in fact contained such information, then the administration would have a duty to prevent its public dissemination, even if lots of kids already knew the information through word of mouth in the hallways.)

Medical information makes the point in an especially clear way. Consider my earlier hypothetical about a student at Smith with HIV or AIDS. Even if lots of kids knew about that student's condition because of the rumor network, the school's administrators would nonetheless have the obligation to prevent the school paper from running a story called "Smith Student Soldiers On With HIV/AIDS"--especially one that named the student--regardless of whether kids knew about it or not. Without the student's (and his parents') clear consent, this would be impermissible.

"Lots of kids at school already know" just wouldn't be a sufficient response to the administrators' concerns and legal obligations.

Something similar would be true of a student's involvement in school disciplinary proceedings.

Now, again, let me make clear that I don't know whether the Cyclone Scoop reported just on the underlying incidents themselves (the kissing-in-the-hallway and the alleged bus assault), or whether they went further and reported on the institution of disciplinary proceedings against the accused students. If it was just the former, I'd say the administrators erred in collecting the newspapers. On the other hand, if the articles reported on the fact that named students were disciplined, or are currently facing disciplinary charges, and the newspaper didn't get permission from the students and their parents, then I'd say the administrators probably had an obligation to prevent the dissemination of the information.

I'm also quick to point out that the administrators would also have an obligation to work with the Cyclone Scoop staff to rewrite the stories without the offending information and to get the papers republished and redistributed immediately, now that school is back in session.

Chris Roush, who indeed does deserve lots of credit for working with the students, initially responded to my concerns about the dissemination of non-public information without parental consent by saying, among other things, "hey, eveyone already knows." I mentioned my daughter (and by extension, in all likelihood, many, many other 6th graders at Smith) in order to point out that this was false -- it is not true that everyone already knows. Thus, even within the building, there are still important privacy concerns to be protected. But my larger point is that even if every 8th, 7th, and 6th grader knew about the disciplinary proceedings, the school administrators still might have an obligation to prevent a school publication from printing a story that identifies students who have been disciplined or against whom a disciplinary case is pending, without parental consent.

Think of it this way: there's an important difference between a newspaper story about the school's rules against public displays of affection and student dissatisfaction with those rules (entirely legitimate), and a newspaper story that says "Joe Smith and Suzy Jones were busted and given detention for kissing in the hallway" (potentially problematic).

I'm very pleased that so many students are using this blog for further discussion of this incident.

In response to a couple of the other comments, let me add a couple of things. First, if it is true that the school administrators were given the newspaper for review before publication, and did not object to the inclusion of information, then I'm much more troubled by the collection of the newspaper than I was before. The time to review the newspaper is before circulation; if they didn't review it when they had the chance to, but then collected it after distribution, this looks quite punitive.

Second, several students have written that the students named in the stories gave their permission. I find it troubling, though, that none of the students writing in thus far has said that the parents consented to the dissemination of their kids' identities, or even that they were asked. This strikes me as a very important detail.

Finally, I hope someone will keep us up to date on whether efforts are being made to get the newspaper back out this week.

Again, I want to remind you that the school administrators announce names of students with detention on the INTERCOM each and EVERY DAY. THE Administrater announced over the INTERCOM that those students were to report to the office to receive their slip so they knew when to get detention. ON THE INTERCOM. If it would not be public knowledge after they essentially told the school that they had detention, then you would have to assume most of the school might have had their ears closed.

Isn't the point of a newspaper to report information that is NOT public knowledge. If it were so and everyone already was well informed, then there would be no point in having a newspaper.

Again, if the administraters cared so much what we did and didn't publish, then why did they give us no resources to work with in the first place? The only logistical way of even publishing a newspaper was to look for outside help.

In response to previous post, here is some updates

Our Journelism Teacher wasn't here today, b/c she was working this situation out

Her teacher's account was suspended, so as to make sure the paper didn't get it.

The only copies of the paper out right now, are with students that didn't give them back, and the ones I can print out. I'll post the articles in a future post.

As for the students in question themselves - they say it is fine with them
to quote one of them, "My Daddy don't give a damn"

Jacob

Some Background on the Hazelwood case- from wikipedia

484 U.S. 260 (1987) was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established (by policy or practice) as forums for student expression. It was decided on January 13, 1988 in favor of Hazelwood School District, overruling a Court of Appeals reversal of a District Court ruling.

The First Amendment's freedom of speech protections were not violated by the school district because the First Amendment protection for student expression described in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) does not compel a public school to affirmatively sponsor speech that conflicts with its EDUCATIONAL GOALS. The SCHOOL-FINANCED newspaper at issue was also not considered to be a public forum under the totality of circumstances present in the case, and therefore, its EDITORIALS were entitled to a lower level of First Amendment protection than is applicable to independent student newspapers or those newspapers that have, by policy or practice, opened their pages to student opinion.

The Hazelwood case, then, is a lot different then this one. The school did not fianance this paper, the information published does not conflict educational goals, and the Hazelwood case involved editorials, not news. Again, no different then passing out birthday invitations

Hahah Yes Cyrus, I am real, and I have to care this much. This is one of the most important things right now when it comes to my school work, so I do care, very much so indeed. Things with the press are just getting crazier, but that's what makes life so interesting, right?
Trust me, the staff will keep everyone entertained and posted!

-- a member of the Cyclone Scoop Staff!--

As a teacher at Smith, what upset me about the articles printed was that it seemed like the school newspaper was praising the acts of these students. I say this because one of the students involved in the bus incident was smiling proudly in his photo even though his actions were nothing to be proud of. The other photo was a re-enactment of the kissing couple and therefore, totally inappropriate.

I also find it interesting that a student posting on this blog makes the claim that the administration simply doesn't like the journalism teacher. How in the world would the student come to think that? Hmmm...

And for the adult who volunteers in the journalism classroom, the previous journalism teacher did not quit. She became a language arts teacher in our school; in fact, she and the current journalism teacher swapped positions. I don't know why, but I do know that's what occurred. I don't know where you're getting your information from.

I was appalled to think the teacher of the journalism class didn't find anything questionable about the articles. This is a MIDDLE SCHOOL newspaper. These students are impressionable and often find violence and sexuality in print and on TV interesting. They are completely desensitized to it. Just because the widespread media publishes this kind of information every single day does not make it right, no matter what the First Amendment allows. Whatever happened to moral responsibility?

Jacob, your comment about not needing newspapers if everything had to be common knowledge broke me up and motivated my addition to this terrific discussion. You kids must me the best to work with and I'm sure that you will take this mess to the wire. I'm with you all the way! Check out the group splc.org for the latest on the situation. I keep reading that the administration didn't know how the reporter got the information or if the kids knew. Why didn't someone ask? The adviser was available the last day of school. The reporter was available the last day of school. And as for the adviser,doesn't Roush work with him/her and wouldn't they know the law before publishing the paper. The administration should trust its employees to know what they are doing, no?

I have to correct something I said in my earlier post. I thought a student had said something about the overzealous administration and faculty who don't like the journalism teacher. I was wrong...the person who said this was the adult volunteer in the journalism class. This is the same person who was under the impression that the current journalism teacher assumed the position because the former one quit. Neither one of these assumptions is accurate, by the way.

"I was appalled to think the teacher of the journalism class didn't find anything questionable about the articles. This is a MIDDLE SCHOOL newspaper."

Yes, a MIDDLE SCHOOL newspaper where some teachers may think the students need to be sheltered and fed news stories revolving around the importance of arriving to class on time, and uninteresting subjects such as the kind of drinks allowed at school. This is the same school that has introduced PBS... 'in a noisy room the teacher will simply raise their hand and the whole class of middle schoolers will immediatly fall silent'...??? The people complaining about the contents of these articles are probably the same ones who should either homeschool their children to shelter them from the 'widespread media that they find so impressionable', or teach in a grade where the kids still bring apples to their teachers.

There is no age limit to when a child is allowed to say something without his/her parent's consent. The students in the interview, as Chris Rousch has REPEATEDLY said, knew completely that they were being interviewed for the NEWSPAPER and that they were most likely going to appear in it once it was published.

In several news reports about the Cyclone Scoop, it has been said that a major issue is if the students knew they were being interviewed. Why hasn't anyone contacted Becky Burke or the staff who actually did the interviewing and find out? They are required to say at first, "Can I interview you for the school newspaper?"

"Whatever happened to moral responsibility?" As far as I am aware, this journalism class is an elective, where the sole purpose is to produce a fact-based newspaper that informs the students and faculty on events occuring in this school. That is the RESPONSIBILITY of the newspaper staff, and your question is making it sound as if you would like the staff to ignore a great topic that gives them the ability to use their journalism training to write a good story.

Mrs. Reinhardt states that the reason behind recollecting the Cyclone Scoop was to protect confedentiality of the minors. Not only has this story been published outside of this school, but the names and actions of the students have gone along with it to newspapers publishing for adults to read it. This story has been on NPR and twice on TV. I would just like to congratulate the faculty's success in protecting the confedentiality of the students...great job.

The faculty DOES seem to be against the journalism teacher. After decoding what has been said, a good bit of the faculty believes that this teacher has no idea how to do her job. For this 'Smith teacher', how good would the newspaper be if it was in your hands? Would we be reading about why it is required to use a #2 pencil on EOGs? The journalism teacher has done exactly what her job is by allowing the students to fully experience what it is like to work on a newspaper staff, and now that not all their stories will be accepted by the entire public, and especially not among the narrow-minded.

I am completely with Chris Rousch and Jacob. I agree that this is a violation of the students' rights and an apology shouldn't be made to the students featured in the stories, but to the staff who dedicated much time to writing them and to the students who had their Cyclone Scoop taken away.

SmithTeacher, the articles did not "praise the behavior".

On the contrary, these articles showed the consequences of both behaviors. One was sentenced to community service hours, the other was given detention.

To assert otherwise is purely rediculous.

Also, you mention "moral responsibility". Whose morals? Would you give an outline of what everyone's morals SHOULD be? Morals are objective and relative, and vary greatly depending on the time period.

Myers, I have a feeling you know EXACTLY what I mean by moral responsibility but are more caught up in the students' First Amendment rights. I agree that morals are SUBjective and relative, but there are human values that are common across all peoples, even though various cultures, ethnicities, etc. may interpret and/or uphold them differently.

In my opinion, publishing articles about the infractions in question wasn't the main issue, though that's what our administration's focus is. The reason it was a confidentiality issue in the first place was because this was information contained on a disciplinary referral form (a legal document subject to NC law) and then released in print to the entire student body. That clearly violates confidentiality laws as applicable in schools. It doesn't matter whether verbal gossip had been going around or not.

"B", the story was published outside of the school because the media got word about the paper being retracted within the school. How did the media get that word in the first place? I can guarantee you the information didn't come from the administration. I'm sure it came from someone who didn't know, understand or care about the confidentiality issues involved. At the very least, the person who went to the media is guilty of poor judgment.

Confidentiality aside, what concerns me is that the students in question consented to having the information published in the first place. Remember how the student involved in the bus incident was shown smiling in the photo? Do you not find anything disturbing about that? The same goes for the kids caught kissing in the hallway, although the photo was not of those involved. Why weren't they embarrassed by their behavior? I can assume by their willingness to be interviewed that they weren't embarrassed by their behavior, even though they may have said so. Why would they want the whole school to know even though many heard through word of mouth anyway? Has no one else on this blog thought about that?

I got the immediate impression that these students were proud of what they did, and I am a mature adult. The newspaper articles struck a negative chord with me, but would they do the same with young adolescents? Probably not, because they're exposed to this kind of behavior in the media every single day. It probably wouldn't bother them even if the consequences were mentioned, and they might even enjoy reading a story about someone else's bad behavior. And quite frankly, that's something to be concerned about.

This is not about sheltering kids. The world is clearly different now than it was when I was growing up in the 80s, but some of the issues are still the same. Students today know a heck of a lot more about the world around them than I did when I was their age. Kids don't need to be inundated with displays and descriptions of bad behavior on a regular basis to know it exists. They don't need "exposure" to it. I didn't grow up sheltered or naive, and I certainly didn't suffer from lack of exposure to the world around me. I just learned right from wrong and tried hard to do what was right. I learned this from my parents and other adults in my life. Kids need guidance from their parents, teachers, religious leaders, and other important adults to help them learn right from wrong. I just don't understand how one can put the journalism students' supposed First Amendment rights (another issue in and of itself) at the forefront here. Just because they think they have a right to publish the information doesn't mean they should.

And to "B", what I would do if I were the journalism teacher doesn't matter. But if I actually were the journalism teacher my students wouldn't be writing about other students' bad behavior. I can tell you that much. There's no place for that in a middle school newspaper, and I would definitely discuss with them the reasons why. We'd look at local and national media and discuss what was actually news and what was just there for shock value. We see some of both in the media, I know. I would also teach my students about responsible reporting. If that means we talk about the importance of the EOGs and wearing appropriate clothing to school instead of about what kids did to get in trouble, so be it. There are lots of GREAT things happening at this school, and several great things were mentioned in the newspaper. But what drew the most attention? The negative things. Why didn't the journalism staff probe harder for information that highlighted the positive?

And, "Smith Teacher" exactly why did those two stories draw such attention? Because the papers were collected, the parents were called and told their kids had been exploited, and the mess blew! Since, according to the latest on the splc.org article and the system spokesperson, the paper DIDN'T break the confidentiality laws that normally bind teachers, principals, etc., why couldn't all the other 25+ articles be distributed? Surely retractions, corrections, etc. could have been made. If you heard anything about the bus incident you would know that the kids on the bus who were intimidated/frightened out of their wits have been concerned that nothing was done to the boys. Hopefully, the article would assuage their and their parents concerns.

When I used the term "quit" to refer to the previous journalism teacher, I did not mean to imply that she quit the school, but that she quit teaching the class because, I was told, she was frustrated with the lack of support given the paper by the administration in terms of how it was printed and the fact she had to work on the weekends to get it out. I am well aware that this teacher is still at the school teaching. In fact, the journalism class met in her room in the fall and I would talk to her.

If I implied that she had quit the class, I apologize, but I went back and read my earlier post, and I don't think that's what I did. It was vaguely worded, however.

As far as the relationships between the principal and other teachers and the current journalism teacher, I have seen and heard too many instances where negative things were said and actions taken against the current teacher -- or the students in the class -- to think otherwise.

I have an understanding of what the role of the media such as a newspaper should play in society and in a school. It should present both the good and the bad. No entity in society is all good, or all bad. I think that the Smith newspaper tries to give an accurate reflection of what life is like for students and teachers at the school. You may disagree with that, and I will respect your opinion.

But the objective of a newspaper is to present the facts, good and bad, and let people decide for themselves. My son found a lot of positive things in the paper as well, and overall, I think the paper presents the school in an extremely positive light. But it also presents stories about what the students are talking about.

The confidentiality issues here are pretty cut and dried, so I don't know why they are continually discussed. An attorney for the Student Press Law Center, in an article on its Web site, states, “The law says that a minor can consent to any lawful activity — even ones that upset his parents — when he understands the nature and probable consequences of his actions."

The issue now, according to the school system spokeswoman, is whether the information was obtained ethically, according to this article here at http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1230. The school system appears to have dropped the confidentially issue because the law is on the side of the paper and the students who put the paper together.

As far as the ethics and the morals of the students in the class, I am proud to have worked with them. They have shown me that they care about their work and took great steps to ensure that what they were doing was ethical and moral.

Hey, Eric. . .
Where do you think all this will go?

That's right Smithteacher, we should just forget about the First Amendment and concentrate on the fact that these kids' misbehavior was reported! Acknowledging bad behavior instills children with an insane urge to replicate the behavior.

The First Amendment isn't what's important, right? It's the fact that we need guidance from other people so they can tell us what's right and wrong. I agree partially with this, but it's simply foolish to discount the First Amendment.

No laws were broken. The stories were presented so that readers could see that every action has an opposite and equal reaction. I don't see the problem.

Smithteacher, I just now noticed that you said "the person who went to the media exhibits very poor judgement", and "does not understand, care for, or know the laws on confidentiality". Something to that effect.

I'm insulted deeply by that. We've researched the law. This law (FERPA) says that teachers, school personnel, and administrators cannot reveal confidential information without consent.

This law also expressly states that it has an exception for student-on-student interactions (such as a school newspaper), and that "The law says that a minor can consent to any lawful activity — even ones that upset his parents — when he understands the nature and probable consequences of his actions."

So the accusations against the journalism teacher are baseless and without merit.

Smithteacher -
Addressing your accusations of 'poor judgement' -What you are suggesting is that nobody say anything about what happened. Having worked for the past 9 weeks on it, it would definitly been a real shame for it to be taken up with no explenation. And say there WAS something illegal about it. That IS still news. This charactar of 'poor judgement' showed me the letter he wrote to the N&O. Nowhere did it metion anything about anyone getting detention. It simpily said the administrators took up the newspaper without telling the journelism staff why. Is that poor judgement?

This was just a case of human beings using their best judgement in a difficult situation. I can understand our Principal taking up the papers - they wanted to make sure that nothing wrong was done, and, if nothing had, redistributing them to the school. I am confident that a resolution will be resolved, and this will all blow over in a mattter of days. Had the newspaper contained something illegal or detrimental to the students in question or their families, I'm sure we would be having a debate similar to this one about how Administratos SHOULD censors the paper. Both parties were acting in what they - and I - beleive was their BEST judgement.

By the way Smith Teacher - how did you know about the boy smiling in the photo if they were all collected? Everyone was instructed to throw away or return them. Just something to think about.