The Vanguard is receiving conflicting reports about the extent to which Davis’ Police Ombudsman, Robert Aaronson, is investigating an incident that occurred on May 12, 2011. At that time, a Davis High student, Alana de Hinojosa, was, according to attorneys at the ACLU, “pulled out of her class at Davis High in front of her teacher and all her classmates, and escorted by a school staff member to the office of the head campus supervisor.”
The ACLU claims that at no point was she informed of her right not to answer questions or advised that she was free to leave the room.
Now, nearly a month after those allegations were first aired, the Vanguard is receiving reports, from sources within city hall, that Mr. Aaronson has launched a full-blown investigation into the actions of School Resource Officer Eddie Ellsworth on the date in question.
However, these off-the-record claims of a full-blown investigation are disputed by Police Chief Landy Black who told the Vanguard on Thursday, “While an official Ombudsman inquiry is not anticipated, the Ombudsman has been briefed. His c
onsultation, in accordance with the terms of his contract with the City, will continue to be employed in this and many other matters of public concern involving the Davis Police Department, which helps ensure the Police Department and the City are circumspect in our consideration and evaluation of the issues/perspectives, and thus able to make well-directed corrective action or modifications to our policies/procedures, if necessary.”
The student, Alana de Hinojosa, told the Vanguard in August that Officer Ellsworth threatened her with legal and other consequences should she not turn over the names of individuals she interviewed when she wrote an article on graffiti artists and taggers.
She also described a school district individual – supposedly acting in loco parentis (in the place of the parent) with a stated policy of having a staff member appear at interviews with police as an advocate, but who acted more as co-conspirator than advocate.
In a letter to Davis Police Ombudsman Aaronson and Chief Landy Black, ACLU Attorney Linda Lye requests an official investigation by the Davis Police Department.
Writing on behalf of two students including Ms. de Hinojosa, “We have grave concerns about recent incidents in which these students were removed from class and subjected to prolonged, coercive interrogations, without parental consent or prior notification.”
“Each student was taken to a private office where they were confronted by a uniformed police officer from the Davis Police Department and high level school officials, who used threats and intimidation to pressure the students to provide information about suspected off-campus conduct by other students. Neither student was suspected of any wrongdoing.”
The ACLU believes this conduct by police and school officials, “violated the federal constitution, the California constitution, and state law” and “underscores the need for parental consent before a student is questioned by police officers, including school resource officers, at school.”
“We encourage the Davis Police Department to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the School District regarding the terms of law enforcement presence on District property that protects students’ rights and ensures that similar incidents do not recur’.”
Earlier this week, Davis Joint Unified School District Superintendent Winfred Roberson told the Vanguard that the district is acting on the ACLU’s request that the District adopt a policy that requires staff to advise students of their rights prior to an interview by law enforcement on District property, by asking them “to provide us input regarding the content of the information that staff might relay to students.”
“We have also asked the ACLU to advise us of their position regarding the rights of students, who are to be questioned by police at school, in various capacities such as victims, witnesses, suspects, and/or ‘persons of interest,’ he told the Vanguard. “Finally, we asked them to include citations to supporting legal authorities.”
“We are looking forward to receiving their input,” he said.
The ACLU did not immediately have any updates to share with the public at this time.
As we reported back in August, both the Davis Police Department and school district disagree with the characterization of the charges made by the ACLU. Superintendent Roberson disagrees with the ACLU’s letter and called their report “one-sided.”
Lt. Paul Doroshov of the Davis Police Department told the Vanguard, “Davis Police Officers are trained to preserve and protect student rights…and always follow the law. Such was the case with regard to the situation the ALCU commented on.”
He added, “The alleged facts as cited by the ACLU statement, which relies on only one side of the story, differ significantly from the facts as we understand them to be.”
On April 27, 2011, an article in the Davis High HUB entitled “Art or Vandalism,” was written under the byline of Alana de Hinojosa, Editor-in-Chief. The article featured actual photos of what some considered gang taggings.
Ms. de Hinojosa described herself as a fan of graffiti. “I think that there are a lot of graffiti artists who are I believe are true artists and I think they have a message.”
“I think that graffiti has a story to tell and I don’t think there are many people that are open to that or believe that,” she said.
She said that she did not expect any issues, however, she is glad she did not do what she originally intended, which was to go out with these individuals on their excursion and report on her observations.
She was pulled out of class by a campus supervisor, but he refused to tell her why she was being pulled out of class.
“I was told to go to the head campus supervisor’s office,” she said. “I went there, that woman was there and I asked her and she said that I would have to wait. And she didn’t tell me why I was in that room.”
She waited in the room for ten minutes when finally the Vice Principle, Campus Supervisor and SRO (Student Resource Officer) walked into the room.
“I still did not know what was happening until that officer pulled out a copy of my article and put it on the desk right in front of me,” Ms. De Hinojosa described.
She continued, “He said, ‘This is a very serious matter, you need to comply with what I ask you to do. If you don’t, there will be very serious consequences.’ And then he began asking me a lot of questions.”
This was not a friendly conversation. From the start, the officer was threatening her with very serious consequences should she not comply.
“He was doing his job. I understand that this officer was simply doing his job and I get that,” she said. “But he coerced me, he intimidated me and he lied to me.”
“I said I was sorry. I [had] explained to these individuals that I would not give out their names. I gave them my word. I won’t go against my word,” she explained. “I know that I’m a student journalist and that I have First Amendment rights. I’m not going to disclose these people’s names.”
“As soon as I said that, he began telling me that I would be liable in court, that the court would easily force me to give their names and that I would have a felony charge on my name,” she said.
At no point did she think to ask for an attorney. Instead, “As he was telling me these things, I just continued to apologize and say I’m sorry I can’t help you, but that wasn’t good enough. He continued to work me and continued to intimidate and threaten me.”
After an hour in the room, Officer Ellsworth finally told Alana de Hinojosa that she could leave and return to class. But only after they confiscated her cell phone, and it would not be returned until an hour after school ended.
“Soon after this incident, I was pulled out again by Officer Ellsworth and this time I was in a room with just him, which I now know is against school board policy,” she said.
She said that she wants the public to understand that she was an adult at the time that this happened, she was taking AP Government and studying journalism.
“For two years, I knew my rights, I understand that and I understand the school is not required to give me my Miranda rights, my Miranda warnings. But I just feel, I feel very strongly that the school acting as loco parentis shouldn’t have let that happen,” she said.
“I felt like trash in that room,” she added. “I was so stripped down to the very core that I felt so vulnerable, that I had no option. I had actually no options and I wasn’t told that I could leave, or told that I could call my parents.”
The ACLU in their letter asked for four changes to school policies: (1) Revise existing policies on police interrogations; (2) Train school personnel about students’ rights with respect to law enforcement officers; (3) Advise students of their rights with respect to law enforcement officers before any on-campus police interrogations; and (4) Prohibit law enforcement personnel from interrogating students on District property without first obtaining parental consent.
Superintendent Roberson responded, “The district has attempted and continues to shape its policies and practices regarding the questioning of students on campus by law enforcement to cooperate with police investigations, maintain and uphold student rights and ensure that the district itself is acting in accord with the law.”
He added, “Public school officials have a duty to cooperate with police investigations.”
Furthermore, he argued that the district already works to provide “ongoing training about students’ rights to personnel that interacts with law enforcement officers.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Chief Black’s statement is accurate. While I have followed all the public information and discourse and had discussions about it with members of the public, City Hall staff and Police administrators, I am not ‘investigating’ this incident.
Based on my review of the accounts that have appeared publicly, I have advocated that there be an internal investigation, in order to collect direct information from the student and from witnesses and to critically analyze the propriety of each of the steps taken. I would look forward to carefully auditing such an internal investigation, to make sure it is exhaustive and impartially analytical.
I regret to say that I’ve not received any letter from Ms. Lye of the ACLU; until moments ago, I was not aware that she had written to me. I will follow-up, to get a copy of the letter and to try to see what happened to the original.
Yet another example of how how secret, off-the-record supposed sources can mislead reporters and waste everyone’s time. David, why do you think your “inside City Hall” sources lied to you here? Why did you proceed to publication in the face of unequivocal denials from the Chief of Police without getting some kind of confirmation? Your secret source now is less credible; will you check out this person’s tips more carefully in the future, now that you know his/her reliability is so questionable?
Why did the subject of your article have to respond as a reader to deny your allegations? You’ve been very critical of your friend Dunning’s failure to do minimum due diligence before publishing his one-sided reports. How does your journalistic practice differ in Mr. Aaronson’s case?
Where did you get a copy of Ms. Lye’s letter to Mr. Aaronson before he received it? Did your City Hall insider shortstop the correspondence? Did your ACLU source send it to you ahead of time, along with the nice portrait? Off-the-record, indeed. Off-the-wall is more like it.
There don’t appear to be a half-dozen sentences of new writing in this article. Instead of continually cutting and pasting the same old stories, wouldn’t it be better to provide a link to the past coverage. That way, we could focus on whatever you’ve got that’s new. “Is Davis’ Police Ombudsman Investigating DHS Incident?” Nope.
To JustSaying: I could not have said it better!
[quote]Ms. de Hinojosa described herself as a fan of graffiti. “I think that there are a lot of graffiti artists who are I believe are true artists and I think they have a message.”
“I think that graffiti has a story to tell and I don’t think there are many people that are open to that or believe that,” she said.
She said that she did not expect any issues, however, she is glad she did not do what she originally intended, which was to go out with these individuals on their excursion and report on her observations.[/quote]
And this is where the school advisor should have stepped in, and explained the LAW to Ms. de Hinojosa. TAGGING IS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, and there is no in between about this. By allowing Ms. de Hinojosa to write the article in the way she did, any reasonable advisor could have foreseen potential trouble with the police.
I asked this question once before and received no answer. Who asked for a police presence on campus? If it was the public, be careful what you wish for. As you can see, it is necessary to have appropriate school policy in place BEFORE bringing the police presence on campus, so there are clear cut lines on what the role is of that police officer. Is it to make students feel safer; someone they can go to for advice; someone who is going to make them feel better about law enforcement? Or is it to put an agent on campus to watch for illegal activity, and question students when they see suspicious activity?
If it includes the latter, then specific guidelines need to be laid out by the school to make the lines clearer as to what is permissible questioning and what is not. I think the clear message here is: 1) better define the role of the police agent on campus and what he is there for; 2) there should be a school policy in place that parental presence is required before any interrogation by police on school grounds is permitted; 3) the school needs to rethink its supervision/advice when it comes to school publications and what articles are permitted to be published.
[quote]The ACLU in their letter asked for four changes to school policies: (1) Revise existing policies on police interrogations; (2) Train school personnel about students’ rights with respect to law enforcement officers; (3) Advise students of their rights with respect to law enforcement officers before any on-campus police interrogations; and (4) Prohibit law enforcement personnel from interrogating students on District property without first obtaining parental consent.[/quote]
I would add a fifth change in policy: 5) Advise students what their rights are in regard to any interaction with law enforcement as a matter of education.
Just Saying:
“David, why do you think your “inside City Hall” sources lied to you here?”
I don’t think they did. The Chief of Police clarified the situation and it appears to comport with Mr. Aaronson’s understand of it.
“Why did you proceed to publication in the face of unequivocal denials from the Chief of Police without getting some kind of confirmation? “
He denied that this constituted a full blown investigation not that Mr. Aaronson would be looking into it, but it appears they will look at it internally first, which is something that had not happened previously.
“Where did you get a copy of Ms. Lye’s letter to Mr. Aaronson before he received it? “
Ms. Lye emailed it to me just before 11 pm at night, Mr. Aaronson probably got a copy as well but had not seen it yet.
“There don’t appear to be a half-dozen sentences of new writing in this article. “
I’d say you need to check your math. Most of the first part of the article was new, and I provided the interview of Ms. Hinojosa as background.
“Who asked for a police presence on campus?”
The district.
[quote]The district.[/quote]
I assume you mean the school district. Why, if you know? What was their purpose? Was this something asked for by parents, or something the school officials decided in a vacuum? Or was it done at a School Board meeting and voted on, so there was opportunity for public input?
[quote]And this is where the school advisor should have stepped in, and explained the LAW to Ms. de Hinojosa. TAGGING IS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, and there is no in between about this. By allowing Ms. de Hinojosa to write the article in the way she did, any reasonable advisor could have foreseen potential trouble with the police.[/quote]
Everyone knows tagging is a crime. But writing a story about it certainly isn’t. If a similar story appeared in the [i]Davis Enterprise[/i], Sacramento Bee, or the Vanguard, would you expect the police to haul in the reporter for questioning? There are stories about criminal activities in the mainstream media in which criminals have been interviewed all the time. CNBC’s report, “the Emerald Triangle,” on marijuana cultivation in California comes to mind as an example. Do think CNBC reporter Trish Regan was interrogated by the DEA because she interviewed a grower? I seriously doubt it, and I think we all know what CNBC’s counsel would have told that agency if they did so.
Since nobody participating in this discussion was in that interview room, we do not know what actually occurred. However, it appears to be undisputed that Ms. de Hinojosa was pulled out of class during an exam to be interviewed by the police regarding this story. If this is true, I just can’t see how there was any need to pull a student out of class during a test in order to question her – whether the interview was appropriate or not. There were no fugitives on the run that needed to be tracked down with bloodhounds before they got away, no hostages, and no ticking bomb to be defused. For what reason, other than the convenience of the officer, could the interview not have been conducted after school hours and away from the high school campus?
I do agree with Elaine’s comment in one sense, however. If these are the expected consequences of writing a story about a criminal activity in the school newspaper, the faculty adviser should have warned Ms. de Hinojosa that this was likely to happen. Come to think of it, do we know whether the faculty adviser expressed any concerns about the story, or was s/he as surprised by the consequences as Ms. de Hinojosa was? That, I expect, is something we will never know.
BTW, after multiple years of civics, US history and government classes in high school, DHS students do know their constitutional rights.
[quote]Everyone knows tagging is a crime. But writing a story about it certainly isn’t. If a similar story appeared in the Davis Enterprise, Sacramento Bee, or the Vanguard, would you expect the police to haul in the reporter for questioning? [/quote]
Student publications are subject to more scrutiny than adult publications by law…
[quote]I do agree with Elaine’s comment in one sense, however. If these are the expected consequences of writing a story about a criminal activity in the school newspaper, the faculty adviser should have warned Ms. de Hinojosa that this was likely to happen. Come to think of it, do we know whether the faculty adviser expressed any concerns about the story, or was s/he as surprised by the consequences as Ms. de Hinojosa was? That, I expect, is something we will never know. [/quote]
We do know the school advisor foresaw some problems w what Ms. de Hinojosa wanted to do, so the school advisor was on notice of potential trouble, yet chose to allow the student to head for trouble anyway…
So my advice to the school would be to tighten up its policies and supervision, to make sure students are not put in harms way… students don’t know what dangers they are walking into, but the school certainly should be more aware…
ERM,
“Student publications are subject to more scrutiny than adult publications by law…”
We’ve gone over this already but…True, however in some states, CA being one, students have the right to publish freely and have editorial control of the school’s publication. As long as the writing isn’t deemed libelous, explicitly obscene, slanderous or will cause a serious disruption to the school’s function (see below). The school’s role is primarily advisory.
“We do know the school advisor foresaw some problems w what Ms. de Hinojosa wanted to do, so the school advisor was on notice of potential trouble, yet chose to allow the student to head for trouble anyway…”
The advisor apparently told the student that it might not have been best for her to be in the company of these taggers as they go about their activity. I think that is sound ADVICE, seeing as how the student could have been perceived as engaging in this activity, which is illegal. Nevertheless, the advisor, to my knowledge, did not (and I don’t think she can) forbid her from going with them on her own time.
Now, that’s not the same as telling her she should not write or pursue this story because the police may want to talk to you about it. Again, I don’t think the advisor would have been in the right if she had told her not to write this story or if the school pulled the story.
Why do you assume that the advisor knew that the police (I assume that is what you meant by “potential trouble”) would seek to question the student following this publication? Is this a common thing? I mean, if this is unprecedented, why should the advisor believe it would occur? Do you know?
“Head for trouble”…so what trouble is she in?
“So my advice to the school would be to tighten up its policies and supervision, to make sure students are not put in harms way… students don’t know what dangers they are walking into, but the school certainly should be more aware…”
But they cannot do what it sounds like you would like. The advisor and/or school can scrutinize the work of student journalists all they want, which I believe they are supposed to do so as to ensure it doesn’t meet the aforementioned list of unacceptable content. However, they can’t violate the students’ right to publish freely in CA. The level of censorship you advocate for would violate their protected rights.
Was this story ever pulled? Do you know why it was never pulled? If they had, legal action would have been taken because they cannot pull a story like this because it’s was not deemed libelous, explicitly obscene, slanderous or a serious disruption to the school’s function, per the law/legal precedent.
ERM, you have mentioned before that the student’s story DID cause a disruption. I have presented you with numerous citations and cases that lay out what is deemed a “disruption,” yet you seem to ignore them.
As to the disruption, it’s my understanding, per the information I posted previously… “In interpreting the Tinker standard, lower courts have generally said that a material and substantial disruption is a physical event that significantly interferes with the normal operation of the school, such as a walk-out, a riot or a sit-in, said Adam Goldstein, the Student Press Law Center’s attorney advocate.”
In one CA case, a higher court ruled that a student journalist, whose stories were racially provocative (focused on Latino immigrants) and resulted in students walking out of the school in protest (I believe the school had a large if not 50% Latino population), that the school was in the wrong for pulling his pieces. The school found his story caused a “material and substantial disruption” due to the students walking out as a result of the publication.
The higher court ruled, “speech that seeks to communicate ideas, even in a provocative manner, may not be prohibited merely because of the disruption it may cause due to reactions by the speech’s audience.”
In short, if you don’t like the law, change it. The schools and student advisors don’t have the discretion to censor the publications in the way you seem to favor because the student journalists are protected under California Education Code 48907. You keep calling for them to do so, as if it’s an option…
ERM,
Re: SROs “Is it to make students feel safer; someone they can go to for advice; someone who is going to make them feel better about law enforcement? Or is it to put an agent on campus to watch for illegal activity, and question students when they see suspicious activity?”
My understanding is that the intent is focused more on the former, but that doesn’t mean that the latter isn’t in the SRO’s duties. I also think it depends on the school/district, but I think the emphasis is less on having an agent on campus strictly to keep an eye out for illegal activity/have an intimidating police presence on campus or that’s how it’s often presented to the public/parents.
It’s been mentioned on this site that it would be helpful to educate students on their rights. According to the 2009-2011 DPD “Strategic Plan,” one of the youth strategies is listed as “Give at least two ‘Know Your Rights’ seminars designed for high school aged participants and their parents per year.” http://cityofdavis.org/police/pdfs/Strategic Plan 2009-2011.pdf
Does anyone know if this has been happening? If so, are they mandatory for students or are they after school seminars”
[quote]We’ve gone over this already but…True,[/quote]
I rest my case… and you underestimate the positive influence a school advisor has on students, if they tell them they might be putting themselves in harms way if they were to publish an article written in a certain way…
[quote]Now, that’s not the same as telling her she should not write or pursue this story [/quote]
I never, ever said that, alluded to it, whatever. It was the WAY in which the article was written that was the problem…
[quote]Why do you assume that the advisor knew that the police (I assume that is what you meant by “potential trouble”) would seek to question the student following this publication?[/quote]
I actually talked to some other parents about this very issue, and they had the same reaction I did. If a student writes an article that indicates she knows who the taggers are, that is an open invitation for the police/school to question her. Had she written a much more general article, or said she heard it through the grapevine, whatever, there is much less likely to have been this sort of trouble. And the proof is in the pudding – the student’s article did indeed cause the police to arrive on her doorstep so to speak, did it not?
[quote]Was this story ever pulled? Do you know why it was never pulled? If they had, legal action would have been taken because they cannot pull a story like this because it’s was not deemed libelous, explicitly obscene, slanderous or a serious disruption to the school’s function, per the law/legal precedent. [/quote]
You are really missing the boat here. Students rely on their advisors, go to their advisors for advice. Clearly this student did – and I strongly suspect would have written her article a bit differently to keep out of trouble had the advisor been a bit wiser…
I will go out on a limb and predict, contrary to your claim about “freedom of the press” in school, that there won’t be the same sorts of articles coming out of the HUB anytime soon…
[quote]ERM, you have mentioned before that the student’s story DID cause a disruption. I have presented you with numerous citations and cases that lay out what is deemed a “disruption,” yet you seem to ignore them. [/quote]
Case law is subject to change at all times…
“I rest my case… and you underestimate the positive influence a school advisor has on students, if they tell them they might be putting themselves in harms way if they were to publish an article written in a certain way…”
Yes, although they CA students have the right to freely publish and have editorial control over the publication, the school has a very narrow and limited ability to censor the content. What you have advocated for, IMO, will not happen as it violates students’ rights.
What makes you think I’m underestimating the advisor’s influence? My understanding is that they are there to assist the students and to ensure the content doesn’t meet the standard of unacceptable content, which is quite narrow. By and large, the publication is the students’ and they make the decisions, simply. I don’t believe the school advisor wants to have that type of influence on the student journalists. I believe that’s the point of giving the students this freedom and editorial control, per the law.
“I never, ever said that, alluded to it, whatever. It was the WAY in which the article was written that was the problem…”
A problem for whom? She was questioned by officers/school officials and exercised her right not to divulge her sources. Now, it seems there is contention as to whether or not this was acceptable, but other than that, the student journalist and school advisor, for allowing the story to be written and published, are in the right. YOU don’t like it, okay.
“If a student writes an article that indicates she knows who the taggers are, that is an open invitation for the police/school to question her.”
Hindsight is…
“And the proof is in the pudding – the student’s article did indeed cause the police to arrive on her doorstep so to speak, did it not?”
Nevertheless, is it a regular thing to occur with student journalists in this state? If this is really unprecedented, I don’t expect that the advisor absolutely should’ve known what the outcome would be. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter bc the student has every right to write and publish that story, not to mention the advisor must let it be published.
“You are really missing the boat here. Students rely on their advisors, go to their advisors for advice. Clearly this student did – and I strongly suspect would have written her article a bit differently to keep out of trouble had the advisor been a bit wiser…”
The reality is that the school and its advisors can’t prevent stories, such as this and I will note again that to my knowledge it never was pulled due to the protections afforded student journalists (WHY IS THAT?), from being published in the school newspaper. I think you should read up on the law and legal precedent or do you just disagree with it?.
Just admit that you disagree with the law and legal precedent already. There’s a reason why this story was permitted to be published. The schools DO NOT have the right to censor the publication the way you would like. Again, call your rep or lobby to change the law if you don’t like it. Otherwise, your point in re: School’s need to prevent such content from being published are completely moot. That may be your wish, but it’s not feasible.
Yes case law changes, but it’s been made pretty clear that the CA courts strongly disagree with the limitations schools have placed and you would like to place on what students can publish.
The fact is, the law and precedent are pretty clear. This student and the advisor did no wrong. I’m glad to hear that the HUB’s advisor doesn’t believe her role is to alter the methods, content and writing of his/her student in the way you seem to favor.
“Case law is subject to change at all times…”
Sure, but it would seem that the courts have been pretty consistent and I don’t see that changing.
One last time, if the school COULD HAVE prevented the story from being published or pulled it once it was, as it was slanderous, libelous, etc, then why did they not? The proof, as you say, is in the pudding.
ERM,
What is the legal basis for you recommendation that schools drastically censor student publications in CA schools, so that stories such as this are not published?
In what ways did this story meet the threshold/standard of unacceptable content per CA Ed Code 48907?
[quote]Just admit that you disagree with the law and legal precedent already. There’s a reason why this story was permitted to be published. The schools DO NOT have the right to censor the publication the way you would like. [/quote]
Let me be more explicit, since you seem to be missing my point (which obviously is my fault for not communicating my argument well enough). Any astute student advisor, that knew a student was gong to interview someone engaging in criminal activity, had to have known that was an open invitation for trouble w the police – wanting to know the identity of the individuals engaging in the criminal activity. Common sense would dictate this in my mind – hindsight notwithstanding. So the student advisor could have ADVISED the student thus:
“Look, if you print the story like this, letting the reader know you talked to individuals engaging in criminal activity, that is an open invitation for you to be questioned by the police as to the identity of those individuals. So why don’t you make your story more general, say you have heard through the grapevine or in research on the subject have learned… That way you will not put yourself in harm’s way for the possibility of being questioned by the police.”
If you don’t think that is common sense advice, then we will have to agree to disagree 🙂
Secondly, as I said before, I strongly suspect you will see no more articles this controversial coming out of the HUB again – and if I am correct, then the school has more control over publication than you think, and as they should.
[quote]Any astute student advisor, that knew a student was gong to interview someone engaging in criminal activity, had to have known that was an open invitation for trouble w the police – wanting to know the identity of the individuals engaging in the criminal activity.[/quote]
You think so. I never would have expected that to happen whether it would have been me writing it or a student under my guidance. Now having seen how this has played out, it potentially changes the way in which I would approach a situation like that in the future. Because I wouldn’t have thought that graffiti a big enough deal to haul in a student who had not committed a crime and try to shake her down.
[quote]You think so. I never would have expected that to happen… [/quote]
With a cop on campus, it is exactly what I would have expected… especially bc graffiti is such a hard crime to police (pardon the pun)…
ERM,
“Any astute student advisor, that knew a student was gong to interview someone engaging in criminal activity, had to have known that was an open invitation for trouble w the police – wanting to know the identity of the individuals engaging in the criminal activity.”
Maybe, then again maybe not. Either way, it doesn’t really matter re: students’ free press rights. Maybe it would have helped the student if the advisor braced her for what ultimately happened and explained to the student her rights in such a situation, but it sounds like the student possessed this knowledge already.
According to the law, “it shall be the responsibility of a journalism adviser or advisers of pupil publications within each school to supervise the production of the pupil staff, to maintain professional standards of English and journalism, and to maintain the provisions of this section.”
Sounds to me like the adviser acted as s/he should have, per this section. It’s not the role of the adviser to tell them what to write/publish or discourage them from writing stories. Story didn’t violate the “provsions of this section,” so it was published and remained in the publication because to remove it would violate the law.
“Secondly, as I said before, I strongly suspect you will see no more articles this controversial coming out of the HUB again – and if I am correct, then the school has more control over publication than you think, and as they should.”
It would violate the law if the school prohibited such stories from being published or pulled them. It is, in fact, that simple. The school can’t adopt policies which violate the students’ protected free press rights. It’s not a matter of what I think as much as what the law requires. If the story doesn’t meet the limited scope of material that cannot be published, then it will be published if the students wish to do so.
Again, the law states in re: school control over publication: “There shall be no prior restraint of material prepared for official school publications except insofar as it violates this section. School officials shall have the burden of showing justification without undue delay prior to a limitation of pupil expression under this section.” http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/law_library.asp?id=6
I will leave you, once again, with what the judge ruled not too long ago about this very issue, “speech that seeks to communicate ideas, even in a provocative manner, may not be prohibited merely because of the disruption it may cause due to reactions by the speech’s audience.”
I don’t know what more there is to say. It’s pretty obvious that you disagree with the law and the freedom it affords student journalists in CA, but it’s abundantly clear that the level of censorship you support would violate the law.
Elaine: I wouldn’t have expect the SRO to play the role he did either, which is another matter of concern.