Since I am afraid my last post digressed into a rant, I am going to try to play devil’s advocate to the article “What? Some kids are gay? Woodlan principal evidently lost perspective on sophomore’s column.”
“If only to protect the integrity and financial interests of a school district, a principal has good cause to review student publications before they are distributed.”
I completly agree. A school newspaper should be equally responsible for libel and plagarism as other newspapers. Students learn about integrity and proper research.
“the East Allen County Schools board has a policy giving administrators strong authority over publications, saying the district ‘will not tolerate text or commentary in school-sponsored publications or productions that … is socially inappropriate due to the maturity of students …’”
This also sounds completly reasonable. Huh. This devil’s advocate thing isn’t so hard so far. As a paper representing the school and school district, it is understandable that the newspaper be reviewed to make sure it is truthful and appropriate. As with any good journalism, curse words or explicit subject matter should be censored, or at least studied to judge whether it is necessary.
These quotes are both statements I would have no trouble supporting in my classroom. In the case of Woodlan High School, it seems that normally the journalism adviser, Amy Sorrell provides most of the review. She only runs topics she feels are sensitive by the principal. When this unacceptable opinion piece was published,
“Yoder [the principal] gave Sorrell a written warning that said any other incidents could lead to disciplinary action, including being fired.”
Again, this is very just. A warning before action is a good idea; maybe this piece flew under Sorrell’s radar, right? Maybe she had a sudden lapse in judgment? In any case, the principal will now be reviewing all articles before the paper is printed. It’s a shame, but I don’t think the principal is being unreasonable.
What was this offensive, inappropriate opinion piece the students should not have been exposed to, the school should not have been responsible for? Megan Chase, a sophomore, wrote
“asking students to be understanding and tolerant of their peers who are gays or lesbians”.
Tolerance? This is unacceptable. Even without reading the article, I can tell that it must have been very inappropriate for a high school audience. Understanding is highly overrated. I think that gay and lesbian topics should not be discussed in high school. They should institute a don’t ask, don’t tell policy. Students should be made uncomfortable about their sexual orientiation; they should have to hide who they are. Duh.
Okay, so the whole devil’s advocacy isn’t really working. If you couldn’t tell, the previous paragraph is completely facetious. To be fair though, I could understand the principal’s worry if the article used explicit language or discussed explicit material. However,
“It doesn’t get any more explicit than acknowledging that some people feel desire for members of their own gender.”
The school recieved no complaints from parents about the article. It called for peace and love. It called for harmony and acceptance. It did not ask readers to agree with homosexuality; it only asked them to admit that some people identify themselves as homosexual and to treat these people with respect.
In the end, I would have to agree that the principal went a bit overboard in this case. Though I agree with his rights, I think that he did not make good use of them here. He is either overly scared of repercussions, or has his own intolerances to work through.
“What? Some kids are gay?” by Bob Caylor. Fort Wayne. read full article.
