Discussion drawn from "Subtle Censorship: The Problem of Retaliation Against High School Journalism Advisers and Three Ways to Stop It" by Buller
In his article outlining the prevalent issue of high school journalism advisers being terminated or otherwise punished for the administration-criticizing writing of their students, Buller provides three potential solutions, and argues that "the best path to ending retaliation against journalism advisers is through state legislatures adopting statutes that prohibit adviser-retaliation, grant students a cause of action, and require local school districts to adopt consistent policies protecting student publications."
Below is Buller's proposed model state statute as printed in his article:
Below is Buller's proposed model state statute as printed in his article:
This is an incredibly relevant issue in need of a valid solution, as Buller supports with examples of the threat and consequences of retaliation against advisers, stating, "No matter the source, censorship chills student speech, teaching students that fully exploring their freedom of expression will result in consequences to them or their teachers."
I certainly agree with Buller that a state statute following the example he has provided is the best option for protecting advisers against retaliation from administration. It combines the advantages (and lessens the disadvantages) of the three approaches he suggests, as listed below:
1) "Route 1: Students or advisers can seek relief through litigation under federal or state constitutions"
Advantage: "Courts can fashion a remedy appropriate to a plaintiff's particular circumstances." Buller explains that the power of this option is that it provides a direct solution to a variety of unique individual censorship problems.
Disadvantages: "Students may have difficulty even acquiring the resources to begin litigation," and "even if a landmark case does make it to the appellate level, there is no guarantee that the ruling will be enforced throughout a jurisdiction without additional litigation." It is extremely difficult for students to establish and win a censorship case, and even if they do, the court's ruling will be specific to those circumstances, and could be hard to apply to other cases (and enforce). Furthermore, the lengthiness of cases and shortness of school terms means that oftentimes, students graduate before the case can be seen through to resolution, and it must be dropped.
2) "Route 2: Local school boards can adopt policies that protect advisers from retaliation based on lawful student speech"
Advantages: Developing and passing policies for school boards is much simpler and faster than the state legislation process or litigation in a state/federal court. Also, this would allow principals to "rely on clear-cut district policies" in instances of controversial editorials. Finally, as Buller points out, "school policies generally supportive of student-speech rights contribute to a culture where advisers feel less pressure to interfere with student journalism or infringe on student speech in the first place."
Disadvantages: Unfortunately, it can be extremely difficult to persuade a school board that student journalists need MORE protection from censorship. Even if they do adopt a policy protecting advisers, it can easily be repealed later on. Finally, this option does not guarantee enforcement, because "students cannot seek injunctive relief to compel a school district to follow its own discretionary policies."
3) "Route 3: State legislatures can pass statutes prohibiting retaliation based on lawful student speech"
I will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the provided example statute specifically to explain why I believe this to be the best option.
Advantages: Under this statute, students can seek various forms of relief, and their options are "clearly laid out." Student claims can survive graduation. There is "far less ambiguity and uncertainty than would result from state- or federal-constitutional litigation." Furthermore, this allows a better reference so that aggrieved students can decide whether or not to bring a claim. The statute also requires local board policies to prevent retaliation against advisers. Enforcement is not a problem as it is with local policies, because state courts can more easily enforce them through litigation. Statutes are not as easily repealed as schoolboard policies. Finally, the terms and standards involved in adviser-retaliation are clearly defined.
Disadvantages; State statutes are harder to pass than school board policies. Many proposed statutes protecting advisers have failed in the past.
Buller's final solution effectively includes the advantages of the previous ones, and rids journalists of the disadvantages, very clearly establishing itself as the best option.
Until reading this article, I had no idea that indirect censorship was such a prevalent issue, or that there were so few solutions for journalists to pursue. Now I am much more aware of my rights as an adviser, and the sorts of consequences that I could potentially face if we don't fight for more protection. Emily Smith, journalism adviser in Pittsburg, KS, told us how afraid she was of losing her job when her students uncovered their new principal's fraudulent claims. No journalist should have their free speech chilled out of fear for their income. Buller's proposal provides simple but thorough coverage for students and teachers so that they don't have to suffer these effects.
I certainly agree with Buller that a state statute following the example he has provided is the best option for protecting advisers against retaliation from administration. It combines the advantages (and lessens the disadvantages) of the three approaches he suggests, as listed below:
1) "Route 1: Students or advisers can seek relief through litigation under federal or state constitutions"
Advantage: "Courts can fashion a remedy appropriate to a plaintiff's particular circumstances." Buller explains that the power of this option is that it provides a direct solution to a variety of unique individual censorship problems.
Disadvantages: "Students may have difficulty even acquiring the resources to begin litigation," and "even if a landmark case does make it to the appellate level, there is no guarantee that the ruling will be enforced throughout a jurisdiction without additional litigation." It is extremely difficult for students to establish and win a censorship case, and even if they do, the court's ruling will be specific to those circumstances, and could be hard to apply to other cases (and enforce). Furthermore, the lengthiness of cases and shortness of school terms means that oftentimes, students graduate before the case can be seen through to resolution, and it must be dropped.
2) "Route 2: Local school boards can adopt policies that protect advisers from retaliation based on lawful student speech"
Advantages: Developing and passing policies for school boards is much simpler and faster than the state legislation process or litigation in a state/federal court. Also, this would allow principals to "rely on clear-cut district policies" in instances of controversial editorials. Finally, as Buller points out, "school policies generally supportive of student-speech rights contribute to a culture where advisers feel less pressure to interfere with student journalism or infringe on student speech in the first place."
Disadvantages: Unfortunately, it can be extremely difficult to persuade a school board that student journalists need MORE protection from censorship. Even if they do adopt a policy protecting advisers, it can easily be repealed later on. Finally, this option does not guarantee enforcement, because "students cannot seek injunctive relief to compel a school district to follow its own discretionary policies."
3) "Route 3: State legislatures can pass statutes prohibiting retaliation based on lawful student speech"
I will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the provided example statute specifically to explain why I believe this to be the best option.
Advantages: Under this statute, students can seek various forms of relief, and their options are "clearly laid out." Student claims can survive graduation. There is "far less ambiguity and uncertainty than would result from state- or federal-constitutional litigation." Furthermore, this allows a better reference so that aggrieved students can decide whether or not to bring a claim. The statute also requires local board policies to prevent retaliation against advisers. Enforcement is not a problem as it is with local policies, because state courts can more easily enforce them through litigation. Statutes are not as easily repealed as schoolboard policies. Finally, the terms and standards involved in adviser-retaliation are clearly defined.
Disadvantages; State statutes are harder to pass than school board policies. Many proposed statutes protecting advisers have failed in the past.
Buller's final solution effectively includes the advantages of the previous ones, and rids journalists of the disadvantages, very clearly establishing itself as the best option.
Until reading this article, I had no idea that indirect censorship was such a prevalent issue, or that there were so few solutions for journalists to pursue. Now I am much more aware of my rights as an adviser, and the sorts of consequences that I could potentially face if we don't fight for more protection. Emily Smith, journalism adviser in Pittsburg, KS, told us how afraid she was of losing her job when her students uncovered their new principal's fraudulent claims. No journalist should have their free speech chilled out of fear for their income. Buller's proposal provides simple but thorough coverage for students and teachers so that they don't have to suffer these effects.