amateur ramblings

My younger brother Waseem Salahi is a Co-Editor-in-Chief of his high school’s newspaper, “The Smoke Signal.” As is standard with almost all high school newspapers, the administration “reviews” the paper before it goes to press every month. This month, the administration called Waseem into the office 1-2 hours before deadline, where he was met by the principal and three vice principals. The administration made it clear to him that the article needed to be “changed,” ostensibly to avoid creating “division” on campus. However, while Waseem was talking to administrators, the journalism adviser told students to replace the article with an advertisement, and the publication was sent to press while Waseem was still arguing with the administration.The administration denies that this was an act of censorship, and instead claims that it merely wanted “changes” to be made to the article–however, according to my brother, the requests for changes were not merely regarding wording, but had to do with content and substance. Before I discuss the actual article, which expresses criticisms of the administration and the school’s Associated Students Body, I think it’s important to say this clearly: even a request for “changes” amounts to censorship. Even worse, the school administration may have broken the law in trying to enforce those requests.

In California, high school administrators do not have the right of prior restraint (that is, the right to prevent speech before it actually happens) for any student publications, even ones that are officially recognized and funded by the school in question. As far back as 1977, California has protected students’ rights in this respect in Section 49807 of the CA Education Code, which states:

“There shall be no prior restraint of material prepared for official school publications except insofar as it violates this section.”

Violations are enumerated in the following way:

…expression shall be prohibited which is obscene, libelous, or slanderous. Also prohibited shall be material which so incites students as to create a clear and present danger of the commission of unlawful acts on school premises or the violation of lawful school regulations, or the substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the school.

To put it in other words, high school administrators in California only have the right to block or modify student publications if they are either:

(1) obscene
(2) untrue (libelous or slanderous)
or
(3) create a “clear and present danger” on campus

Merely creating controversy does not fall into any of these categories. According to my understanding, the concern that administrators voiced throughout this entire ordeal was that the article in question would be “divisive.” They did not say it would start riots, they did not say it was factually incorrect, and they did not claim it was obscene. They said, in essence, that it was too controversial to print–but it is more likely that it was stopped because it was critical of the high school administration as well as the ASB. Furthermore, according to this advisory by the California Department of Education in 1988, before censoring material prior to publication, school officials

…must notify the student and give specific reasons why the submitted material may not be published. Absent extraordinary circumstances, such notice should be given in sufficient time to allow the student to either modify the material (particularly where the problem is journalistic) or to seek review of the school official’s determination at the school district level.

Two hours before the deadline does not seem like a reasonable amount of time to allow anybody either to significantly modify an article or to challenge the administration’s decision at a higher level.

At this point, I couldn’t be more proud of Waseem, who responded to this brazen act of interference by the administration in the smartest way possible: by contacting bigger press and also self-publishing and distributing the article on campus himself. One Santa Clarita community paper, The Signal, printed a front page story about this issue, as well as the full text of Waseem’s censored editorial in solidarity.

This morning, once the coverage in The Signal was out, Waseem was called into the office for a meeting with the school’s administrators, to which my mother was asked to come. According to my brother, the administrators expressed their disappointment that he had reacted in this way, and that given this reaction, they were “re-considering” whether he was responsible enough to continue in his position as Editor-in-Chief of the school’s paper. They also requested that he not distribute the copies of the article which he had printed himself, which are imaged to the side and which can be downloaded by clicking here. Of course, the administration here is mainly annoyed that it has been embarrassed because–the horror–somebody actually talked about the censorship itself. That’s the funny thing about censorship, it seems: it only works if nobody knows about it. Not only does the administration want to censor the original article, but it wants to censor anything that might be said about that initial act of censorship. Looks like a slippery slope to me.

Nevertheless, Waseem has been met with strong support from students on campus, as well as teachers, counselors, and campus supervisors. Whether the administration will threaten his position as Editor-in-Chief remains to be seen, but removing him either because of the original article, or because of the fact that he distributed it independently, is almost certainly against California state law. High school students in California have the right to distribute any publication or printed material on campus that they desire, even without the school’s endorsement or permission, as long as it does not violate any of the conditions above.

Of course, this story would not have been an issue if it weren’t for the subject-matter of Waseem’s article. He touched on a few things which really should not be news to anyone; all it takes is a stroll around campus to see the segregation on Hart’s campus. Everybody is well aware of it. Waseem’s article made the simple point that the campus community was not as unified or inclusive as the administration and the ASB like to think because:

(1) The high costs of participation in most school activities by default excludes those whose families are either unwilling or unable to pay (Waseem cites the number $2,910 as the estimated cost of participation in all senior activities–to put this number into perspective, the poverty threshold for a family of four in 2006 was found to be $20,444. That is almost 15% of a full year of income for a family living at the poverty line, or the cost of living for 2 months)
(2) That a sense of “belonging” and involvement of different communities on campus could be measured simply by looking at the ASB, which is incredibly unrepresentative of the student body as a whole (Even if there are no rules which lead to this lack of representation, there must be something else which makes certain communities feel that their participation in this institution is unwanted or unappreciated)
(3) That division exists not only racially, but academically as students are split between the “intellectual elite” and “midkids,” and linguistically between English and non-English speaking classrooms

This situation is not unique to Hart High School, but is actually a fairly common phenomenon for any school which serves a community so economically and ethnically diverse. The more serious thing to consider here is not the division on Hart’s campus, which is obvious enough at face value; but, rather, to consider the idea that perhaps the problems on Hart’s campus are emblematic of a wider problem in the Santa Clarita Valley. Things certainly are not dandy and, even if they are quiet at the present, they have not always been, and will not always be. Eventually, these divisions will surface again, and next time they may not be in the form of a high school editorial. Instead of tucking the serious issues away, as Hart’s administration has tried to do, perhaps it is time not only for a campus dialog but a community dialog about the real and perceived disenfranchisement and exclusion of Santa Clarita’s minority and low-income communities.

There are two ways for the administration to save face at this point. One is to pay serious attention to the issues raised in Waseem’s article and to figure out a way of involving students, faculty, and other community members in a community dialogue on how the issues can be addressed. The second is for it to reflect a bit on the way it deals with students and student activities, including student publications. There is clearly something wrong with an administration that tries to ignore a problem rather than confront it. Worse, this is not the only story of censorship I’ve heard regarding the school paper–I remember at least one incident during my freshman year when, after the paper had already been printed, students were forced to tear a specific article out of every printed copy because it was critical of the administration’s use of funds to renovate the school quad. I also received the following message today from one former Editor-in-Chief of the same school paper, Rory Kelly:

As a former EIC of “The Smoke Signal” I sympathize with Waseem’s plight. The administration has always actively worked to stifle the newspaper. We had several uphill battles against Fuller that always resulted in censorship. I hoped those days would end with Fuller gone but guess not.

There are probably countless other experiences to report. If this is how those who are most involved in the student body feel when they reflect about their experience in interacting with school administrators at Hart, then something is wrong. It is up to students and faculty at Hart, now, to make sure that they pressure the administration to modify its behavior and attitude towards the student body. After all, students, it’s your school. Not the administration’s.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and the legal information above should not be taken as legal advice.

Update: It looks like new media is in on the revolution as well. SCVTalk.com has a summary of the ordeal, and this anonymous blogger has written about it as well.