Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 13 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Editorial: What are they teaching students in Faribault?
Published Tuesday, December 30, 2008
There is no way a school district can instill American values into its students if part of their education is the shutting down of the student newspaper because the superintendent didn’t get to see the story before it prints.
Like many school administrators across the United States, Faribault Superintendent Bob Stepaniak fails to understand the First Amendment and its role in America’s success.
At issue was a story about a female middle school teacher who was placed on administrative leave after complaints of inappropriate communication with a student. The student journalists simply went to the Faribault Daily News, which verified the research, did additional investigation, then printed a story Dec. 10. The Rice County attorney never pressed charges against the teacher, but the police investigation describes several text messages allegedly sent to male students.
Stepaniak falsely argues the release of such details in the Echo would jeopardize the district’s duty to privacy laws. But the Echo was seeking to print information sourced from a police report and therefore already a public document. Anyone has the right to go see it. Stepaniak only was trying to quash the story.
We realize that because the Echo is a student paper, it has less First Amendment protection than a traditional newspaper, thanks to the 1988 Hazelwood ruling. However, many states, such as Iowa, Colorado and Kansas, have enacted anti-Hazelwood laws that recognize the free-speech and free-press rights of student journalists. Minnesota should use this incident as motivation to pass a similar law.
Stepaniak chose to teach the students in his district that the government can control the press. That’s not really the spirit behind having a student newspaper, and what’s the point of having a student newspaper if it doesn’t serve as a true learning laboratory?
Let’s hope the new Faribault school board gets the Echo printing again.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on December 30, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow! This is an outrageous action - shutting down a student newspaper - and over a sourced article from verified research and public records!
Superintendent Bob Stepaniak should be recalled for such a decision! In fact, thank you to the student journalists for helping get the story out about inappropriate behavior by Shelly Ann Prieve. Kudos to the student journalists! We don't want a school district passing this teacher on to another school district.
Police, district investigate teacher. By Jim Hammerand, Christen Hildebrandt and Ben Jackson, Faribault Daily News,12/10/08: http://www.faribault.com/news.php?viewSt...
District shuts down student publication over Prieve article. By John Agliata, Faribault Daily News, 12/15/08: http://www.faribault.com/news.php?viewSt...
Former editor opposes idea of halted student newspaper. By Corey Butler Jr., Faribault Daily News, 12/19/08: http://www.faribault.com/news.php?viewSt...
Journalist group upset with superintendent. By Art Hughes, Faribault Daily News, 12/19/08: http://www.faribault.com/news.php?viewSt...
Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on December 30, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This made Minnesota Public Radio on December 15th: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collect...
Here's the "full disclosure" on the Faribault Daily News, The Shelly Prieve story, December 10th: http://www.faribault.com/news.php?viewSt...
»» Before I start, full disclosure time: I know Shelly Prieve. She lives down the street from me, right across the street from the police chief. A few months after I moved in I was sitting on my driveway playing with my son and she walked down to introduce herself. Her kids and my son have played together often. Her youngest son was at my boy's birthday party this year. I like Shelly Prieve.
Which makes what's going on now all the more difficult for me personally but still leaves me believing that what we as a newspaper did professionally was right... (please continue reading at link) ««
Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on December 30, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The potential cost to the taxpayer is NOT a valid reason for censorship. The Supreme Court case regarding school newspapers which is most frequently cited is Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (decided on January 13, 1988).
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. A Complete Guide to the Supreme Court Decision, Student Press Law Center (best read in full at link; small excerpts follows): http://www.splc.org/legalresearch.asp?id...
»»... Hazelwood expanded the authority of school officials to censor a student publication that is curricular and not a public forum, as the Court found the newspaper at Hazelwood East High School to be. School officials will be allowed to censor these kind of publications when they can show that their censorship is "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical [educational] concerns." When the censorship has "no valid educational purpose," it will still be prohibited.
School officials were not given limitless authority under Hazelwood. They still have the burden of justifying their censorship under this "valid educational purpose" standard...
[The article goes on to describe several examples of "valid educational purpose" which the Supreme Court gave. Perhaps the one most relevant here is the following:]
In addition, the Court said school officials can censor material that would "associate the school with anything other than neutrality on matters of political controversy."...
School officials must be able to show that their censorship is "viewpoint neutral," that is, that they did not censor simply because they disagreed with a particular view students were expressing... ««
How does the District get away with this? Although "prior review" is a problematic form of censorship, "prior review" by school administration is allowed under Hazelwood. So, perhaps, they should have let the superintendent review the article, but if the students remained "viewpoint neutral" and merely reported on what was found in the police investigation, I don't know how the article could have been removed.
It would seem to me (but I'm no lawyer) that the desire to keep Shelly Ann Prieve's name out of the article doesn't hold water once the name and investigation is public record. As to prior additional disciplinary actions against Shelly Ann Prieve which came out in the police investigation, I don't know how the District could have required those removed from an article if personnel confidentiality had already been breached by document posting in the Faribault Daily News (and at worst, even if not posted in the student publication, how could they keep the student publication from pointing out that the document was available on the local paper's web site?).
No to censorship! Yes to the Freedom of the Press! What are our soldiers fighting for? Think! Some of these students may soon be serving in our armed forces...
Posted by mwessell (anonymous) on December 30, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The prosecutor declined to pursue a case for lack of evidence and the judge determined there wasn't sufficient cause to grant a warrant for the text messages. hipocryt is correct in her/his assumption that the teacher in question would have pursued legal action against the school if the story would have been allowed to be published based on what right now amounts to heresay evidence and some text messages. No middle school story was ever exaggerated the more it was told right???
The first lesson here is not about censorship. It is about the difference in the judgement of a superintendent who recognized the School District's exposure to litigation and the judgement(?) of some teenage "journalists" with a sensationalized story fit for the tabloids. The second lesson is that some situations are better left for adults to handle...period.
Taxpayers - 1 School Newspaper - 0
Posted by mwessell (anonymous) on December 30, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nisperos...you left a little of the decision out. I believe this point is pertinent since the readers would be fellow students of middle school age... IMO not mature enough for the material.
"Educators are entitled to exercise greater control over this second form of student expression to assure that participants learn whatever lessons the activity is designed to teach, that readers or listeners are not exposed to material that may be inappropriate for their level of maturity, and that the views of the individual speaker are not erroneously attributed to the school."
Additionally, I don't believe the mission or lesson of a school newspaper is to involve the school district in potential litigation. I believe I could argue this on behalf of Mr. Stepaniak and be successful. Of course, I'd need to see the original story written by the students...not the edited version in the Fairibault paper.
Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on December 30, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mwessell:
This was for publication in the HS newspaper - not the middle school paper. Furthermore, the students worked with the professional journalists from the local paper on their story...
Do you think this is inappropriate for a HS newspaper? I don't. But, regardless, the lesson here is for students or their parents to go to the police when there are inappropriate actions involving school staff. Do not go first to school staff. Go read all the articles on this in the Faribault Daily News as well as the associated documents. Then ask: should some school staff have been following their "duty to report" earlier?
I hope the courage of the journalism students helps some of them get college scholarships.
Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on December 30, 2008 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well... about that Judge who thought there wasn't probable cause, Honorable William A. Johnson...
I wonder why he thought no probable cause... and what it would have taken to perfect the request to grant a warrant for the text messages. Did the judge have ALL the info in that police investigation or, was the request made before all the info was obtained?
Lots of Prieves in Rice county. It makes me wonder if the family name was an influencing factor...
Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on December 30, 2008 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Read the Rice county attorney's office memo dated 10/29/08: http://www.faribault.com/photos/File596....
»» ...The statements of the children certainly present troubling behavior on the past of Ms. Prieve, and her actions and observed behavior lead to a reasonable belief she has had inappropriate contact with the children interviewed. In order to charge Ms. Prieve, I would need the children to clearly indicate sexual contact, penetration, or solicitation occurred... ««
Read the Faribault Police Department report: http://www.faribault.com/photos/File603....
»»... 6 felt that Mrs. Prieve was trying to force him into something and he told her that I am a student you are married and he was a teenager and had other priorities to go with and that they can't be doing stuff like that, from there everything pretty much stopped... [keep reading because there's quite a bit more] ««
Posted by trifid (anonymous) on December 30, 2008 at 11:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The potential cost to the taxpayer is NOT a valid reason for censorship"
How right you are! People such as 'hypocrit' believe the constitution should be circumvented whenever it may convenience them. Not only are they willing to dump the constitution to lessen their taxes; they also believe torture is justifiable.
Posted by mwessell (anonymous) on December 31, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Regardless, a school newspaper is not the appropriate medium to do an expose on a teacher. The local paper printed the story...which was the correct course of action.
I'm not defending the teacher's actions. Clearly, she violated the school's code of conduct for teachers. But, the Superintendent made the right decision exercising editorial control.
Posted by goodcarma (anonymous) on December 31, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Read further into the Faribault Daily News. Even though they assisted the student editors and published the story, they agree with Supt. Stepaniak's decision. They don't like it, but believe, under case law, he is correct.
Editorial -http://www.faribault.com/news.php?viewStory=39515
Editors blog - http://www.faribault.com/news.php?viewSt...
Editors blog - http://www.faribault.com/news.php?viewSt...
Supt. Stepaniak is the publisher of the Echo, and has the last word on what gets printed. Just like Scott Schmeltzer and the AL Tribune, he gets to decide what gets printed and what does not, and no one cries "censorship" over that.
Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on December 31, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps it's surprising to some, but although I find it problematic, I agree that it looks like the school can exercise "prior review" (as I indicated above). What they then choose to do in a "prior review" is where the rub comes in. Maybe some day this will change or Minnesota will enact some helpful legislation in this regard...
In the meantime, I am glad that the students went to the local paper and that the local paper published this important story. We need to bring the discussion of sexual predators in schools into the light.
The research in this regard is very limited, but it seems that in the earliest years, a predator works very hard at getting into a position to abuse. For example, they may have received "teacher of the year" or "most loved" (that of course, is not to put most educational staff who excel in this regard, it's just to say that it's known that for younger children, it's often a staff member whom another adult might least suspect).
In later years, the predator or the one grooming a student for possible abuse is a person with the inclination and opportunity; it can be a poorly performing staff, an average employee, or one who excels. The key in later years is that being a predator or grooming a student is a crime of opportunity and staff who has unsupervised one-on-one time are more frequently those who have the opportunity to offend; coaches (sports or clubs), band instructors, bus drivers, counselors, those who lead field trips when there are too many students and too few staff...
The other issue which comes up in this regard is female predators and females who groom students for possible inappropriate behavior. Here's a big list of female predators across the country compiled by World Net Daily: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=397...
Posted by mwessell (anonymous) on January 2, 2009 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Scary stuff nisperos. I didn't realize the list was that long.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)