Speaking of freedom

In the Jan. 19 edition of Woodlan Junior-Senior High School’s newspaper, The Tomahawk, Megan Chase, a sophomore at the Fort Wayne school, wrote an editorial urging the acceptance of homosexuals, citing suicide statistics and lack of choice in sexuality as support for acceptance. There was nothing vulgar, hateful or violent about the piece. It was an egalitarian-based appeal for acceptance.\nDespite the innocence of the editorial, the principal of the school, Edwin Yoder, branded the piece “inappropriate material” and demanded he be allowed to review all pieces in the newspaper before publication in the future – a power that will now be outlined by March 5 by Assistant Superintendent Andy Melin.\nNewspaper members contacted the Student Press Law Center, which advised them to appeal the decision. Yoder then accused the school’s journalism adviser, Amy Sorrell, of insubordination and exposing students to material that was inappropriate. The principal told her she would lose her job if she did not comply with the review process.\nPrior restraint cannot be allowed. It is true the courts have a history of giving public-school administrators more freedom to censor than is generally allowed elsewhere. The 1988 U.S. Supreme Court case Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier gave public-school administrators the ability to censor if they can prove a conflict of educational interests (especially in regard to teen pregnancy and divorce). Under such logic, Woodlan could only censor this piece if it could prove that discussions or debate about homosexuality are disruptive to education.\nIt is the moral responsibility of the school to educate. But what are the students learning from this experience? That if you voice opinions out of line with those in authority, you will get punished and silenced. Yoder is teaching that a free press is dangerous and that those in power should have the ability to shut down unpopular opinions.\nMelin told The (Fort Wayne) Journal Gazette the problem the school had with the editorial was not its content, but rather its one-sided viewpoint. Aside from the fact that this is a direct contradiction of Yoder’s view that Sorrell allowed inappropriate material to be printed, an editorial is an expression of opinion. By all rights, it should advocate a particular stance. For this reason, the principal’s explanation for censoring the editorial seems ill-founded.\nThirty-six percent of American high school students already believe the press has too much freedom and should be monitored more closely by the government. It is because of actions similar to those of the The East Allen County Schools that we are raising younger generations of people who doubt classic interpretations of constitutional liberty. When young people are taught in high school that prior restraint is OK and that the press should be monitored, they will grow up to be policymakers who believe in a government-controlled press. Without a free press, even with all its imperfections, there would be no check on the government – no watchdog, no advocate for the public. We must teach our children the value of a free press, or we will lose its protection in the future.