State
Rep. Dave Upthegrove (D-Des Moines) proposed the bill, which would be the first
to protect both high school and college students from prior review and
administrative censorship under the same statute.
Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Iowa, Kansas and Massachusetts currently have laws that protect high
school student publications from censorship. California recently enacted a law
protecting college journalists as well.
In the committee hearing,
Upthegrove said it is necessary for students to have “pride of
ownership” over their work.
“A healthy democracy and
accountable government depend on informed, engaged citizens, and I worry about a
generation growing up without an understanding of their rights and not knowing
how to apply those rights and responsibilities,” Upthegrove
said.
Mike Hiestand, a legal consultant for the Student Press Law Center,
attended the hearing and said he was impressed with Upthegrove’s
“inspirational” opening statement and the number of students
present.
“It went just about as well as anyone had hoped,”
Hiestand said. The hearing room was “overflowing” with students,
which created an “energy in the room,” he said.
Between 15
and 20 people testified in favor of the bill, including students and advisers,
according to Hiestand.
Brian Schraum, a former student at Green River
Community College, first approached Upthegrove with the idea for the bill after
the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Hosty v.
Carter, which could provide college administrators in Illinois, Indiana and
Wisconsin some ability to censor student publications. Now a student at
Washington State University, Schraum also spoke on behalf of student journalists
at the hearing.
“Look into the eyes of students in the
audience,” Schraum said to the committee. “We are
people.”
Jeff Nusser, adviser to the Emerald Ridge High School news
magazine, The Jagwire, spoke on behalf of his students and the bill.
Nusser said the opposition to the bill is “couched in fear of what
students might do wrong.”
“I would like to challenge you and
everybody else to consider what the students might do right if we give them this
opportunity,” Nusser said. “[My students have] consistently exceeded
my expectations...they’ve consistently provided work that is on par with
professional journalists.”
Associate Publisher Kenneth Bunting of
the Seattle Post-Intelligencer also testified, echoing an editorial he
wrote in support of the bill that was published the morning of the
hearing.
Six people testified against the bill, including administrators
and members of state education associations.
Barbara Mertens, assistant
executive director for governmental relations of the Washington State School
Administrators Association, spoke against the bill.
“The public
school newspaper that is run by the students is overseen by the school
administrators and the teachers,” Mertens said at the hearing. “If
you take away their responsibility to advise, guide, direct and determine what
will or won’t be appropriate and civil for that particular newspaper, they
have in fact not had the ability to do the very thing you hired them to do, to
guide these students and to teach these students.
Jocelyn McCabe,
director of communications and business partnerships for the Association of
Washington School Principals, explained that although it was an “excellent
day for students,” her organization remains opposed to the
bill.
“It’s a difficult bill for us because we recognize that
there are outstanding journalism programs and student journalists in our
state,” McCabe said. “[High school newspapers] are funded by
taxpayer dollars, which puts them in a whole different light than privately
owned media.”
McCabe also said that although the opposition was
“outnumbered” in the panel presentations, there are many more
administrators who have doubts with the bill.
An executive session with
the judiciary committee is currently scheduled for Tuesday at 10
a.m.
By Erica Hudock, SPLC staff writer
© 2007 Student Press Law Center
Share
For More Information: