Censoring Administrations Make A Difference in an Unexpected Way

by Victoria Ison


Censor-happy administrators need to realize that when they stifle student voices the only thing they really accomplish is the satisfaction of their own paranoia.

Followers of first amendment media will have noticed the recent collection of headlines concerning censorship of tattoo-focused articles, advertisements and/or commentaries in certain high school publications.

Citing from a spectrum of supposed reasons, school administrations have felt it necessary to prevent the printing of students’ feature pieces. Some have cut already placed and purchased ads, causing a communication mayhem of back-and-forth apologies and explanations and also damaging the financial stability and reputation of school student media. Others have cut pieces at the last minute, leaving student journalist scrambling for something to fill the glaring holes.

In doing this, these administrations have created a raucous likely far more widespread and passionate than would have arisen had the material been permitted to print as planned. They have exercised and maintained their authority, certainly, but with the loss of personal respect from members of their student media, their communities, and the strangers scanning the headlines of first amendment blogs across the web.

They did all this as if their censorship could really make a difference.

The likelihood of vast numbers of high school students being encouraged to get tattoos because of an objective article in their high school newspaper (as one administrator suggested might occur if an piece he cut was permitted to print) is almost nonexistent. In all frankness, student newspaper readership numbers in many high schools are far from impressive.

Furthermore, a spectacularly miniscule percentage of student media material is actually censor-worthy. When advisors do their jobs properly, students are discouraged from pursuing any truly insensitive or “dangerous” stories, angles or ideas before the print ever hits the page.

In censoring material, administrators do not “protect” their student populations. They do not prevent them from getting tattoos, or participating in any sort of illicit behavior they had already planned. They probably do not change their readership’s lives in any way.

In fact, these administrators often accomplish exactly the opposite of their intentions. Word of squashed rights spreads fast and inane censorship incidents serve to inflame the love of other journalists for their beloved first amendment.

By censoring, administrators simply make others more determined to exercise their right to free speech. They serve as examples of “evil” administrations and make others realize the first amendment isn’t something to be taken for granted. They promote free speech awareness.

One could almost say that by censoring, administrations do the first amendment a favor.