Censorship concerns table school policy

by PAUL MORTON

Associate editor

Public concerns of censorship led the Oberlin school board last week to table a change in the policy on school-sponsored publications.

The board voted unanimously Tuesday to table a replacement policy on school-sponsored publications and productions presented by NEOLA, a school policy management company. Local First Amendment expert Shirley R. Johnson said the proposed replacement seemed to be a conglomeration of policy, guidelines, and admonitions.

"The original policy was a lot easier to understand, and would still serve the purpose," Johnson said. "This policy does not sound like the values of this community, nor the curriculum they are asking us to consider critical of creative thinking."

The proposed replacement policy lists several areas of speech that courts have ruled are unprotected by the First Amendment and are prohibited in school-sponsored student publications and productions. Those areas include speech that is defamatory, libelous, obscene, or harmful to juveniles; speech that is reasonably likely to cause substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities or the educational process; speech that infringes upon the privacy or rights of others; speech that violates copyright law; speech that promotes activities, products, or services that are unlawful for minors; and speech that otherwise violates school policy or state or federal law.

The policy further states that school-sponsored student publications or productions are nonpublic forums, and can be regulated for style and content for legitimate pedagogical, or educational reasons. It states that legitimate pedagogical concerns include the teaching of shared values in civilized society, including discipline, courtesy, civility, and respect for authority.

It would also allow school officials to prohibit speech that is ungrammatical or poorly written.

According to the policy, student publications would include material in electronic form, including web sites, blogs, video or audio clips, and newsletters and announcements transmitted by e-mail or wireless broadcast. The term production includes live or recorded vocal or theatrical performances, impromptu dramatic presentations, or any other audio or video productions that are recorded for broadcast using any broadcast technology.

Board member Beth Weiss said the wording of the policy seemed to indicate the author had a specific agenda. Superintendent Geoff Andrews said it had been prepared by NEOLO's team of lawyers in response to changes in law and court rulings that have been issued since the current policy was adopted.

"NEOLA isn't always perfect," Johnson said. "Various policies we've gotten from them in the past, various board members in the past have changed or corrected or adjusted to suit Oberlin's purpose."

She said if the board approved the policy, they could expect to be sued for prior restraint, a violation of the First Amendment. Andrews said NEOLA would pay for the schools' defense if they were sued under the policy as presented.

"What NEOLA says is if you adopt the policy as we suggest you adopt it, then they'll be responsible, as opposed to the board being responsible," Andrews said. "They won't warrant the old policy, but if you adopt the new one and you get sued, it's on their nickel."

The board voted 5-0 to table the policy and send it back to the policy committee for revision.

The board also voted not to revisit the issue of the Pledge of Allegiance. Shawn Marcin, who had raised the issue last year, presented the board with petitions signed by almost 900 people, including 54 Oberlin residents, and asked the board to decide that night whether or not to revisit the issue.

"Are we at a place where we can revisit this?" Marcin said. "I don't want to do this for another year. You've already heard both sides. Are we at a place where we can have an up or down vote of the board to create a policy to include the Pledge of Allegiance?"

Marci Alegant, who last year voted to change the policy to recite the pledge, said she was not willing to revisit the issue.

"Although I'm a pledge supporter, because we went through this last time, we heard from a lot of people," Alegant said. "There's no new information. I don't see the need to revisit the policy."