Adams' passing lost to students, First Amendment

Dr. David L. Adams
Photo used with permission from the Indiana Daily Student

By Scarlett Heydt
Voices Editor

This special edition First Amendment Issue is dedicated to David L. Adams, who passed away at the age of 59, on June 2. Adams was an advocate of student journalists and their rights.

"He was very passionate about students and their rights, and that was him," said North counselor Greg Chaffin, who was a former student and close friend of Adams. "He never stood back. He was very supportive of his students or any students really. He wasn’t afraid to get his hands dirty."

Adams was born Oct. 30, 1947 in Kansas. He received his bachelor’s degree in English in 1969 from Kansas University. Later he earned his master’s in journalism from Kansas State University in 1984. In 1989, he moved to Bloomington and became the director of student media at Indiana University. He was the adviser of all student publications at IU.

While Adams was the adviser of the Indiana Daily Student (IDS), the Society of Professional Journalists awarded the IDS the Overall Excellence for College Daily Newspapers Award in 1998, 2004 and 2005. In 2007, the College Media Advisers chose the Arbutus for the Best Large Yearbook. The publications also won several Gold Crowns from Columbia University.

"Even though he advised his students at the IDS, he never made the decision for them," Chaffin said. "He just taught them to be responsible journalists."

Not only was Adams actively involved with journalism, he also belonged to Unity Church. He was a board member of Bloomington’s Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). He was also a member of the Bloomington Rotary Club for 18 years. Adams is survived by his partner, Chumning Chou, his son, John D. Adams, his brother Charles Adams and his stepmother, Betty Adams.

Testimonies to Dave

"Dave would be the first person to say his greatest accomplishment was when we covered his death. Dave brought me here from New Jersey. He saved me. My paper was suing our college for firing our adviser. He came to cover the story… He stood up for us and put his neck out there. He later e-mailed my personal account…He told me to come to IU, write for the paper, get good grades and he would help me get scholarships. He set students up with opportunities to succeed. We were Dave’s kids."

-Alberto Morales, senior IU journalism major

"What I admired about Dave was he never acted like he was on the clock. He made time for all of his students... A lot of advisers only care about the job, but Dave cared for the people on his staff as a whole. He would bail kids who had a little too much to drink out of jail. He would invite kids who didn’t have anywhere to go for the holidays to his home. Everyone knew that at anytime they could call Dave… And not only was he willing to help, but Dave was a student for life…and never felt shame in learning from his students."

-Rachel Knoble, IDS assistant director of operations

"In 2003, I was working at the IDS and mostly I covered what the police did. At the time, I was house-sitting for Dave, who was at a conference for a weekend. I was also without a car. Well, at some point I was listening to the police scanner, and it said there was a high speed pursuit going on and that it was heading toward Bloomington…I started to ‘spaz’ out because I needed to be in that chase. Suddenly, Dave shows up, and I just started babbling about the chase. So he said ‘Let’s go.’ He handed me the keys to his four-door, white Toyota…I’m weaving in-and-out of traffic, passing people on the right side of the road, doing 70 MPH in his car. We were there a moment before the police."

-Brandon Morley, IU journalism graduate student

“Dave believed that the ultimate say of the publications should be in the hands of the students…I came to appreciate how strong and enthusiastic he was and not just within the IU community. He was on the forefront of all issues related to student journalism. Anytime there was controversy, he was there. Dave believed that journalism was a public service and in order to do a good job, you have to have freedom.”

-Ruth Witmer, IDS editorial adviser

'Bong Hits' clear violation of rights

By Scarlett Heydt
Voices Editor

Any person who is a true advocate for the First Amendment is probably still throwing up because of the disgusting display of complete disregard for the First Amendment shown this summer. The Supreme Court upset many advocates of First Amendment rights when it ruled against Joseph Frederick in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case this past summer.

In 2002, the Olympic torch was passing through Juneau, Alaska. Frederick, who was 18 at the time, was on a field trip with his high school to watch the event. As the torch passed by, standing on a public sidewalk, he unrolled a banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." His principal, Deborah Morse, ordered that he take the banner down. When he refused, she tore the sign down and suspended Frederick for 10 days.

Frederick felt his First Amendment rights were violated so he took his case all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court failed him, and all students however, by voting in favor of Morse, with a split vote of 5-4.

This case is a blatant violation of student rights for three reasons. One, although it was a school-sponsored field trip, it was at a public event where the banner was displayed. Second, Frederick was on public property and he was not actually at school. And third, he may have been a student at the time, but he was 18, therefore legally an adult. The school had no right to suppress his right to hold the sign because the First Amendment guarantees all Americans the right to free speech.

The Supreme Court definitely dropped the ball on this case. They claimed that the banner advocated drug use. The phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is a nonsense phrase. It doesn’t mean anything. It was just a sign. It was a phrase simply made up to get a rise out of people. Well, it certainly caught people’s attention. Unfortunately the people without any sense of humor decided that because they didn’t find it funny, someone needed to be punished. And because that person was a student, it was simple to manipulate and violate his First Amendment rights.

Some students may think this doesn’t affect them. But this affects every student across the country. When Frederick lost his case, so did every student in America. With this ruling, students are held accountable for their actions outside of school, based on school rules.
The last time anyone checked, this was a free country. Based on the Supreme Court ruling though, the freedoms that come with America only apply to people who aren’t students. How dare the Supreme Court feel that because someone is a student, he/she does not deserve the basic Constitutional rights. Students are people too.

Students have just as many thoughts and opinions as anyone else, and the Court has no right to silence anyone simply because they disagree with any topic. Was "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" an important phrase that students truly felt needed to be heard? No, even Frederick admitted many times through the course of the trial that he thought the phrase was ridiculous. But the fact that the school and the courts refused to let Frederick be heard just because they felt the banner was inappropriate doesn’t mean that the next time a similar situation comes up it’s not going to be unimportant.

Next time, it could be a sign advocating for different educational standards and the principal might disagree with a student’s thoughts. Or it could be advocating for not re-instating the draft and someone might feel the draft is necessary and will use the Supreme Court ruling to silence the students.

No one likes being told that their thoughts aren’t important. No one should have his/her voice silenced. It’s a shame that society has taken a giant step backward when it comes to the rights of students everywhere.

First Amendment not an issue of taste

By Lauren Thiery
Features Editor

First Amendment rights of public school students may be infringed when students “materially disrupt class work or involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.”

Due to the 1988 case of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court created three exceptions regarding student free speech rights. One states that “educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.”

However, do these iffy and loosely worded exceptions to the First Amendment violate the rights of free speech given to all? This kind of wording leaves much room for interpretation in all its loopholes and gaps, often to the expense of those whose rights may be violated.

In 2004, the North baseball team’s slogan, as printed on its t-shirts, was, “How deep can you go?” The following year, it was, “Where swinging wood is understood.” Last year’s more risky slogan was, “You hang it, we bang it.”

While these slogans can be taken offensively as sexual references, they also pertain directly to baseball. These slogans caused a lot of controversy, but they’re still within guidelines. Much of the time, negative connotations are only seen when they're directly looked for.

Habitat for Humanity’s t-shirt slogan is, “Show us your cans.” This can also be interpreted as a distasteful sexual reference as well, but the real meaning is overlooked. Habitat, a prestigious and nationally acclaimed organization dedicated to sheltering the homeless, collects cans of food to help feed those in need. The slogan was meant to be a cute way to help advocate their cause.

Although some of these slogans certainly raised an eyebrow and/or were frowned upon, they were still printed. It is a step forward when students exercise their First Amendment rights. However, it is a step backward when these rights start to be abused.

Appropriate exercises of free speech would include shirts which stand for a cause. Shirts for things such as clubs, fundraisers and political campaigns help advocate a cause, instead of suggesting vulgar innuendos. These kinds of shirts don’t overstep the line and are meant to do good instead of offend others.

Rights shouldn't be exercised wrongly in order to challenge authority or test the extent of their boundaries. The appropriateness of material in school should be a personal decision and the need for it to be questioned, censored or edited should never even rise.

Up to students to protect First Amendment rights

North Star Staff Editorial

As Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas wrote in 1969, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school house gates."

This argument seems obvious to students today. But it took the authority of the Supreme Court to establish this fact and protect students’ rights. Since the time that these rights were established, the Court has actually been revoking them.

Original rights: Tinker
In the Tinker v. Des Moines, Iowa case, in 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that it was against the First Amendment for school administrators to punish three students who wore black armbands, as symbolic speech, to protest the Vietnam War. In this landmark case, the Supreme Court established that students and teachers do have rights in school.

Not everyone agrees with this decision, though. In the Tinker case, there were two dissenting justices who claimed that "disruptive" symbolic speech should be banned from school, even though there was no documentation that the students with the armbands caused a disruption.

Revoking freedoms: Hazelwood
The once minority opinion, that when students speak their mind it is disruptive, is becoming dangerously more prominent today. It is something students must fight against, as since the Tinker case, students’ rights have been revoked on multiple occasions by the Supreme Court. In the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case in 1988, the Supreme Court ruled that public high school administrators have the right to censor school publications even if it does not cause a substantial disruption. This case dealt a blow to students’ First Amendment rights, as it meant students are now subjected to censorship of their speech and press.

Thanks to the Hazelwood case, many students have had their voices doused, even close to home. In the spring of this year, in Woodburn, Ind., an adviser was released because one of her students wrote an opinion column advocating tolerance of gays. While people may not agree with the student writer’s position, she had a right to express her opinion, although not according to Hazelwood.

Thankfully MCCSC’s publications policy, which was approved in 1978, does not allow interference from administrators unless they can prove substantial disruption. The MCCSC policy states that "official student publications will reflect the policy and judgment of the student editors," meaning publications are primarily under the control of the student editors. The North Star is very thankful for this, as it allows student publications to become public forums for issues pertinent to students, not just issues deemed appropriate by administrators.

More erosions of student freedoms
Despite this liberal MCCSC publications policy, students at North are still subjected to other national rulings regarding students’ rights. These rights became even more endangered this summer.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled against student Joseph Frederick in what is commonly known as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case. Frederick, a senior in high school at the time of the incident in 2002, was punished by his school principal for holding up a 14 foot sign that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" at a public event – the carrying of the Olympic torch through Juneau, Alaska. Frederick, who was 18, had attended the event with other students from his high school who were dismissed early to attend.

Supreme Court Justice David Souter questioned this ruling in a March 2007 report on CNN.com. "The school can make any rule that it wants on any subject restrictive of speech, and if anyone violates it, it’s disruptive?" Souter said. The way the Court ruled, this seems to be the case.

Although Frederick was at a public event, the Court ruled that because students had been allowed to leave school to attend the event, he was still under school supervision and the sign was a disruption to education. Therefore, this student was punished for expressing his freedom of speech in public.

What’s next?

If students can get in trouble for saying what they think, not only in school but also outside it, then what has become of America’s promise of freedoms? It is scary how much freedom we, as students, have lost and still might lose if these trends continue.

Our rights as students are in constant jeopardy. Thankfully, MCCSC helps protect some of these rights, especially with its publication policy. But the North Star believes that it is the responsibility of students to know their rights and fight for them.

The guidelines to protest in Bloomington

Joe Qualters is the police officer in charge of media relations at the Bloomington Police Department. He provided the following information on the rights of protesters:

- Protesters cannot block the sidewalk.
- Protesters cannot encroach upon private property.
- Protesters have every right to protest government actions on government property and/or public property.
- If protesters are protesting on private property without permission, they will be asked to leave the premises. If they chose not to, they will be forcefully removed.
- If someone disrupts a peaceful assembly, it’s known as disorderly conduct, which is a Class B Misdemeanor.
- Protesters can shout. However, they cannot shout anything that would start a riot.
- Protesters have a right to carry signs, but the signs must be in the protesters’ hands. They may not be in the ground.

Protesters take advantage of right to assemble

By Scarlett Heydt
Voices Editor

Carol Canfield, a member of the Church of the Good Shepard, can be found every Thursday morning protesting outside of Planned Parenthood, no matter what the weather. Thursday is the day Planned Parenthood performs abortions. Canfield feels very strongly about her pro-life cause. She says that her church believes that performing abortions should be illegal.

"I believe in freedom of speech, freedom of assembly," Canfield said. "As long as we’re not trespassing or breaking civil laws, we have a right to be down there on public property and protest there."

Canfield’s group carries a variety of signs, which say things such as "Planned Parenthood Kills Babies" and have photos of aborted fetuses. The largest sign is four feet by six feet and depicts a person who died in the Holocaust, an African American hanging from a tree and an aborted fetus. Canfield also uses a megaphone while protesting.

Using this and holding the signs are within Canfield’s rights, she said. After protesting so many times, she and the other protesters have learned what they can and can’t do. However, there have been minor disputes over certain things. For instance, there’s a city ordinance against putting signs in the ground even while protesters are present. The city ordinance states that signs are not supposed to be in the ground on public property, including the signs that are often put in the ground for elections.

Protesters like Canfield made the mistake of putting signs in the ground before they were informed that wasn’t allowed. David Taltott, also a member of the Church of the Good Shepard and a fellow protester of Canfield’s, believes that the things the group does are for the greater good.

"We’re making use of the rights. We’re trying to show people what abortion really is and how it’s a problem," Taltott said. The group also takes videos of their protests so there is always evidence of what they’re doing. Canfield said this is to prove that they are not violating any laws.

"We’re allowed to take video, even though Planned Parenthood said we’re not. If someone asks us to stop filming, we have to stop, but only if they ask us at the time," Canfield said.

Planned Parenthood tries to strictly enforce the laws for protesting. Every Thursday, off-duty sheriffs are there to make sure the protesters comply with the assembly laws. Taltott tries to be accepting of Planned Parenthood’s views.

"People who have opposing viewpoints have just as much right to discuss as we do," Taltott said. "They just have to follow the same rules we do."

Protesters Carol Canfield and David Taltott stand at the corner of Indiana Avenue and Kirkwood Avenue protesting abortions. Canfield also protests every Thursday outside the Bloomington branch of Planned Parenthood.
Photo by Naama Levy

North Star's stance on recent First Amendment cases

Case One: In Indianapolis, November 2005, newspaper adviser Chad Tuley was suspended for allowing his students to publish a story about a student who was arrested (at school) and was charged for allegedly beating and stabbing a 67-year-old man to death. Tuley was cited as being suspended for insubordination. Tuley successfully sued the school district for $74,000, although he is banned from applying for a job in the Franklin Township district. According to thefirstamendmentcenter.org Tuley won because the court ruled that the school could not suspend him for allowing his students to publish a true and pertinent story.
North Star Opinion: We feel that this is a good example of an adviser standing up for their First Amendment rights. Tuley had every right to sue, and the student’s had every right to cover the story.

Case Two: According to thefirstamendmentcenter.org, Megan Chase, a sophomore at Woodlan Junior-Senior High School in Indiana wrote a story in January 2007 asking people to be more tolerant of homosexuals. It was published in her school’s newspaper. In response to this story, school principal Edwin Yoder installed a strict prior review policy. The school also tried to fire the adviser, Amy Sorrell, especially after she and her students resisted the prior review policy. Sorrell later settled, agreeing to move to another school and not teach journalism for five years. She now teaches at a private school in Ft. Wayne. The school now has no newspaper or yearbook.
North Star Opinion: The North Star wishes Sorrell would have stayed to fight as opposed to settling. We feel that the students deserve a newspaper and yearbook. Chase had every right to write a story about tolerance of gay rights. The North Star has written similar pieces and is grateful that North’s policy allows us to do so.

Case Three: According to editorandpublisher.com, in Franklin, Indiana Heide Peek, a 2002 high school graduate, attempted to sue the Clark-Pleasant Community School Corporation for references made about her in Whiteland Community High School’s newspaper Smoke Signals. The paper gave her the "worst reputation" award. The paper also made untrue references to her being raped by a monkey, as Peek had been allegedly raped earlier that year. She attempted to sue for $800,000. The jury ruled that the district was not responsible for the content of the newspaper.
North Star Opinion: We feel that the school wasn’t responsible. However, the students who wrote the story should have been held responsible. It was a poor ethical judgment on the newspaper’s part.

Law in the making: According to www.rcfp.org Senator Richard Lugar and Congressman Mike Pence, both of Indiana, are advocating the "Free Flow of Information Act." Originally proposed by Pence, this act will protect journalists from having to reveal confidential sources, with exceptions if the journalist witnessed a crime or the case is a matter of national security. This would help in cases such as that involving Judith Miller in July 2005. Miller went to jail when refusing to name her confidential source who leaked the identity of a CIA operative.
North Star Opinion: We fully support this bill.