Journalism adviser Rob Melton testifies on Oregon student expression bill

March 28, 2007

Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on HB 3279

Today I am speaking to you as a father of a child who has been censored; an Oregon journalism teacher for 27 years; a former board director of the national Journalism Education Association for 20 years; a former president of the state journalism teachers organization; a current board member of Oregon Education Association; a University of Oregon School of Journalism graduate, and a former newspaper reporter and editor.

I want you to know that HB 3279 is not unprecedented, according to Mark Goodman, whom I spoke with yesterday. He is director of the Student Press Law Center in Washington, D.C. In fact, Iowa has had such a law since 1989, Massachusetts since 1988, Kansas since 1992, and California since 1977. In each of those states, no one has ever argued that the quality of education has dimished as a result of this type of law. In fact, Mr. Goodman said some have argued that it has strengthened the quality of education in those states.

Regarding the concern for legal liability in Oregon, or for that matter the rest of the United States, a school or district has never been held legally responsible for something that was published in a student newspaper in a published legal opinion; nonetheless, this bill contains adequate protections to set those concerns to rest.

Does this law give students more rights than others enjoy? No. This law clearly refers to the limitations upon mass media which exist in our legal system: libel, invasion of privacy, obscenity, clear and present danger, inciting unlawful acts — the very things which are taught to every high school and college journalist right after the lesson on "What is news?" and "Who is your audience?" and "How do you write a news story?" The lesson, just so you know, is always framed this way: You have rights, and with those rights come responsibilities. Thus begins a year-long discussion about what "the Fourth Estate" can do, and then whether we should do it as we discuss law and ethics in the framework of informing the public about its democratic institutions.

Does this law assure that all voices will be heard, whether moderate, conservative, progressive, green or other point of view? Yes. Students must know their voices are important, their opinions — when based on facts — valued, and their news interests validated. Having worked with high school journalists both before and after the Hazelwood decision, I have seen students either reject ideas outright when they say, "The administration would never allow us to publish that," or worse, not even mention something that was right in front of them because they "knew" it would never get published. If a story is going to get killed, it should be student journalists who kill it because they have thoroughly examined the subject, debated their concerns, and made that decision themselves, frequently with the guidance of the student media advisor. This will help restore the balance and vibrancy of a healthy, spirited student press and the intellectual freedom to power it.

Do we need such a law? Absolutely. The effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's Hazelwood decision had a chilling effect first on the high school media, and now on the college media. Although I have a degree in journalism from the University of Oregon, experience as reporter and editor, and a license to teach with a journalism endorsement, one of my principals recently opened her administrator textbook and showed me the one paragraph summary of Hazelwood for administrators. Do you know what it said? "The principal controls the content of school publications."

For any of you who have studied the Hazelwood decision, this is a shocking simplification of the ruling. The textbook said nothing else about the role students should then play in a class which is studying journalism, producing the high school newspaper, and led by a highly qualified teacher.

In fact, let me tell you a story about my own son, who as a freshman at Benson Polytechnic H.S. where I teach, wrote a story about a senior who had graduated the previous year. He had committed a grisly murder. The newspaper staff learned of it from students who knew him from when he was at school. (It was later featured prominently in the local newspaper and on TV.) My son was assigned to write the story, which included reaction from students who knew him. I worked closely with the writer, my son, in the development of the story. We discussed many of the issues and ethical problems it presented. It was an opportunity for real learning to take place. The editor read it and decided it would go on page one.

When the paper arrived, the vice-principal locked the papers up and refused to allow the staff to distribute them because of that story. We pleaded with him to allow us to distribute the paper, which had timely information for that day. In the meantime, the student editor called Mark Goodman, director of the Student Press Law Center, for advice. As a result of that conversation, the staff started a whisper campaign. They asked all of their friends to start asking any school official they encountered "Where's my newspaper?" Word spread like wildfire. Soon, even staff members were asking where the newspapers were.

We had to wait until the principal returned on Monday afternoon, and she and I had a heated discussion over the issue. She mentioned all the people who were asking "Where is the newspaper?" She agreed to disbtribution the next day, but insisted on having grief counselors present for students who might be "disturbed" with the news. No students showed up for grief counseling as a result of the story my son and my staff published in the school newspaper.

Mark Goodman helped us stay focused on our real goal: Getting the newspaper in the hands of our readers. Mission accomplished. Civics lesson learned.

My point here is that this was a solid piece of journalism, a reaction story to something that was of concern to our audience; which, in fact, we had found out about from our readers who told us about it before it was public knowledge. Sometimes we find ourselves these days just fighting to be heard rather than studying, questioning, discussing and debating important issues of the day.

This is a good bill, long overdue. I urge you to support this legislation.

Rob Melton