|
|
|
|
A principal's immodest response
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
If students knew enough about Irish-born satirist Jonathan Swift to parody him, it would be cause for celebration in most area high schools. Instead, it led to censorship at East Coweta High.
Senior Justin Jones burlesqued Swift's 18th-century essay "A Modest Proposal" in the September issue of Smoke Signals, East Coweta High's student newspaper. Lampooning complaints about the drag on the economy by poor Irish families, the great Swift wrote: "A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled."
Titling his piece "Another modest proposal," Justin suggested that the euthanasia of low-IQ students could alleviate the world's woes. His essay and a critique of an East Coweta Princess beauty pageant by the paper's managing editor Caitlyn VanOrden spurred a classic example of administrative overkill.
Principal Derek Pitts impounded 500 undistributed copies of Smoke Signals and told the staff that he wanted more positive and uplifting stories. His overreaction effectively turned Smoke Signals into a free-speech crusade. Resigning her editing position in protest, Caitlyn has created a Facebook site about the saga and is organizing a First Amendment rally.
A "positive" school newspaper devoted to winning football scores is not only boring, but it doesn't teach teenage journalists critical thinking skills. It doesn't take courage to report that the high school band bought new uniforms. It does to challenge the status quo, and that's what good school newspapers should do.
While the U.S. Supreme Court granted school administrators the right to censor some student publications, it stipulated that officials show reasonable educational justification. The justification at East Coweta seems neither reasonable nor educational.
— Maureen Downey, for the editorial board
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2007/10/22/speeched_1023.html?cxntlid=inform
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I suspect the principal may be one of those with low enough intelligence to qualify for for euthanasia, but with high enough intelligence to realise it. I feel sorry for intelligent cattle.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I've just been involved in some research into the realities of 'free speech' - a concept which seems to mean whatever you want it to mean.
For my part, I stick to the position I've argued several times on this forum - there isn't, and should never be, absolute freedom. Freedom should always be tempered by responsibility, and I see no reason why anyone should be able to express subjective (that is, unproved or unprovable) opinions which will clearly be hurtful to others. Hence it is wrong for a religious fundamentalist to denigrate homosexuals unless it is clearly an expression of opinion unsupported by scientific evidence - in which case the writer is apt to appear a shade stupid, which is entirely fair.
But so often the 'West' has taken a skewed view of what constitutes free speech. In Germany and Japan, in the aftermath of World War II, 'free speech' was anything which supported the Allies; everything else was censored. Not to provoke transatlantic warfare (though that would make a change from the North-South divide!), the US protested vehemently against radio jamming by Cuba in the 1960s and refused to sanction UN jamming in Rwanda in the 1990s, when the 'Milles Collines' network was actively encouraging genocide - but jamming was OK (and was successfully employed) in the invasion of Haiti and in the 1990s Gulf War.
It seems that a similarly-skewed attitude is at work here. The principal is wielding his censor's scissors because (apparently) he is severely challenged in the literary field and would't recognise a pastiche if it hit him in the face (which, hopefully, it will!) and he does not understand the concept of criticism - it's more or less OK to slag off anything, as long as anyone who is affronted has a right of reply.
Here we have a principal who - if the report is correct - utterly fails to understand the concept of education - e duco: I lead out; the educator's job is to provoke thought, not to channel it in preconceived ways.
I could go on for another 327 paragraphs, but I'll spare you the pain, as long as you promise to reply if you disagree with me.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
