Masson's Blog and Liberal Indiana are on the Indianapolis Star story about a high school newspaper article on the dangers of oral sex. What caught the attention of both was the comment of Kenn Gividen, probably the state's most prominent Libertarian:
Columbus resident Kenn Gividen, who ran unsuccessfully for school board and was the 2004 Libertarian candidate for governor, said the student newspaper was not the proper place for such a frank sexual discussion.
“I'm sure this is something kids are talking about. Kids talked about a lot of dirty things when I was in school,” he said. “But it's something completely separate for the school to endorse it, which is obviously what they did by publishing it.”
Liberal Indiana notes Gividen's apparently reflexive reaction that anything to do with sex must be "dirty," never mind that the kids are writing about the risks of oral sex, not preaching its virtues. Masson's Blog questions Gividen's libertarianism because of the attack on "free speech," which I think confuses libertarianism with libertinism. Libertarians (both the big L and little l ones) think the government (especially at the federal level) is too involved in our lives and should scale back so individuals can take more responsibility for their own actions. Such responsibility would include, I think, arguing about what is or is not appropriate for high school journalists to do. Libertarians as a group might be somewhat less prudish than the general population, but it's not a fellow-traveling prerequisite.
The key is that both the journalism adviser and the school principal signed off on the article. High school is not a microcosm of the larger society, with student journalists representing "a free press" and school officials representing "the government" that is supposed to keep hands off. Journalists out here in the real world have to deal with the whims and dictates of publishers every day. School authorities are the publishers, with all the rights and duties that involves, and high schools are structured learning environments, not First Amendment laboratories.
As for the article itself, hooray for the student journalists. A major problem with young people today (thank you very much, Bill Clinton) is that oral sex isn't viewed as "real" sex. Without reading the article (maybe it's out there somewhere and someone can link to it), it's impossible to say how well it's done. But the high school officials in charge seem to be impressed, and it's certainly a worthy topic. When I was a high school newspaper staff member, about the most controversial thing we ever tackled was the football stars' favorite foods and movies.
Comments
I believe the student newspaper has the right to publish whatever they wish. But does the right to do something make it right to do?
As issue in Columbus is government control vs parental rights.
When addressing the appropriateness of the article, I explained to The Republic reporter that teenagers have always talked about sex. Does that, in itself, make anything appropriate for publication? No matter how dirty?
Of course, The Republic spun the quote, threw in a jab about the school board election and the AP picked it up. Being misquoted and badgered by the liberal press
"High school is not a microcosm of the larger society, with student journalists representing 'a free press' and school officials representing 'the government' that is supposed to keep hands off."
Well put. And still it seems that this issue of "school censorship" would be silent if all schools were voluntarily funded. Thereby allowing those who disagree with school policy to take their money elsewhere.
My objection to the publication is that the subject matter should be discussed in a classroom (single sex) or at church or at home, not in the student newspaper. Over 60% of the readers of the student newspaper are 16 yrs or younger and they need to see this issue as a sober, serious, personally important issue, not a source for entertainment like most of the school newspaper items. If I took this article and stood in the middle of the shopping mall and read it aloud to passersby the mall security would take me and turn me over to the police as being a disorderly person. If it is unfit to read aloud in public it is unfit for school newspapers.
I've looked at a lot of high school newspapers in the last few years and, based on that, would say the article could go either way -- a sober, serious analysis or a juvenile entertainment piece. I'd still like to see it before making such a judgment call.
The school kids are not the problem. This should be between the BCSC- administrators,teachers and the parents of the children in the BCSC school district.
When there is something going on with the students that all or most of them already know about (in this case, fooling around with oral sex because they don't think it really counts), how should it be decided when student journalists can write about it (with appropriate supervision, review and sign-off by school authorities) and when they can't? Do we just forbid anything about sex or drugs and let them write about anything else? I'm thinking about smoking. I've struggled with it all my adult life, and I started in high school. Maybe if high school newspapers had tackled THAT subject when I was in school(more and more students are experimenting with it, and they will regret it greatly in the future), maybe I would have avoided being a nicotine addict. Or not.
I agree that school officials have a publisher's responsibility for the content of student newspapers, and I think that duty was met here. These kids apparently saw a need not being met, so they filled it. Too many school systems have given up truthful sex education. Before judging these school authorities, find out where children in this county can get good information. With the TV, movies, and news stories reaching our young people today, no subject should be taboo at the high school level, short of making weapons.