Since becoming adviser to Naperville Central's high school newspaper almost 20 years ago, Linda Kane has forged two distinct reputations. One brought national glory to what had been a moribund publication. The other got her fired.Kane, who took over the Central Times in 1989, developed the monthly newspaper into one of the best in the U.S., earning nine National Scholastic Press Association Pacemakers. That award is given annually to the top 20 to 25 high school papers in the nation.
She also was known for being candid. But she became a little too outspoken for Naperville Unit School District 203 administrators early this month when she publicly criticized her principal after the newspaper published three controversial pieces Feb. 28. On Monday (March 17), after Kane declined administrators' request that she resign, they fired her as newspaper adviser.
"It started out as a 1st Amendment issue and then it exploded," Kane said Tuesday. "Basically, I'm standing up for what I believe is right. I would never sugarcoat things."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-hs-newspaper-adviser_19mar19,1,2062973.story
The First Amendment case that deals with student newspaper rights is Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, in which the Supreme Court determined that a student newspaper could not be deemed a "public forum." In the early 1990s, lobbied by Kane and Naperville Central journalists, the Illinois General Assemby passed a bill that would have given student journalists the same access to cover news stories that their competing professional newspapers would. But Gov. Jim Edgar vetoed the legislation.
Bethel v. Fraser (1983) determined that a school could decide what type of student speech was a distraction to the educational process. The case of Frederick v. Morse, last year determined that the school could supress student expression if it was contrary to the student anti-drug mission ("Bong hits 4 Jesus").
Linked above is not only the story of Linda Kane, a journalism teacher that I shadowed when I thought my journalism career would continue as a high school advisor here, but the stories and columns that the Naperville Central principal found objectionable. Read them and blog your thoughts. Does this editorial content belong in a suburban high school? Or was the principal justified?
9 comments:
I can see why the School board would fire her but none of those articles are really bad. The first one is more factual but has a lot more pro-Marijuana wording in it which would go against the schools anti-drug policy. Still I dont see why it is really that bad. The second one should be approved as the author states he changed his ways on Marijuana (sorta) but he does break the profanity line with the cuss words. Again im not really against this one too. The third one is just a mix of ranting and raving and I did not see much problems with it except telling kids to leave friends who use drugs alone which could go aginst the schools Anti- drug thing. Still I really dont see much of a strong case to force her out but that is my opinion on the matter.
Although I generally support free press for high school students, I think Mrs. Kane went too far. She seems to be using her newspaper as her personal soapbox. That's not what the press is for.
Kane should not have been fired like that.
The part about this that really strikes a nerve with me is that it seems the real reason why she was fired was because she "questioned the qualifications and intentions of her principal." You're supposed to question authority figures. In a democracy, you have an obligation to because if they are not questioned then their power is completely in their own hands instead of the hands of the people who they should feel responsible to. I know that school authority systems work far more like authoritarian states than democracies, but I don't think that that fact is very just.
Now whether or not the speech was appropriate in light of Supreme Court precedent is (or rather should have been) up for debate. There could have been a debate over whether the profane words quoted were "imperative to the content or meaning of that quote" and all of the other potential issues. Kane might have lost some on some or all of these counts. However it appears that the school's desire to keep order and do what they thought they should be able to do was what took precedent.
(I really don't like how many potentially illegal things are allowed to happen just because no one involved takes it to court.)
Throughout this ordeal, Ms. Kane’s students received three life lessons:
1. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
2. Life isn’t fair
3. All politics is local
While I support freedom of the press and free speech, I also support the Supreme Court's decision in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier because school newspapers should not be a "public forum." Thus, I do feel that Ms. Kane overstepped the Hazelwood ruling in the publication of those articles and I think she deserved to be removed as newpaper advisor. The issue isn't questioning authority, it's following the Supreme Court's ruling on school newspapers and Ms. Kane did not do that.
Although I am usually a supported of the 1st Amendment and free speech, especially for student journalists, I do think the the School Board was right to find fault with the articles. First, Naperville Central is a public school, and therefore profanity should never be used, even when it enhances a quote. Using such language can cause students to feel uncomfortable and is disrespectful. Although writing on controversial issues can cause strife, I don't think that it was the subject that angered the school board, but the way that the articles were published and edited. I do think that Mrs. Kane went two far, especially in her quotes about the principal. It was disrespectful, and unfortuntaly she know will have the face the consquences.
Post a Comment