AEJMC Network

Networking Home for Divisions and Interest Groups

Shared web space for AEJMC DIGs

Resolution One 2013

by

AEJMC Resolution: 25th Anniversary of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

April 2, 2013

Contact:
Dr. Kyu Ho Youm, AEJMC President
(541) 346-2178
youm@uoegon.edu

The Board of Directors of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) recently passed a resolution regarding the 25th Anniversary of the Supreme Court significantly reducing the level of First Amendment protection afforded to students’ journalistic speech in the case of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.

In the ruling, the Court’s 5-3 majority concluded that schools could lawfully censor student expressions in non-public forum media for any “legitimate pedagogical purpose,” and that among the recognized lawful purposes was the elimination of speech tending to “associate the school with any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy”.

AEJMC President Kyu Ho Youm of the University of Oregon explains, “Being keenly aware of this year as the 25th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the AEJMC Board of Directors expresses its increasing concern about the negative impact of the case on freedom of the student press. This is all the more so, when the case has been expanded far enough to apply to the college press over the past 16 years. As the leading national organization of postsecondary journalism and mass communication educators, AEJMC wishes to express its strong stand on the unwarranted abuse of Hazelwood as an easy tool of censorship against student journalists on all levels, including that of colleges and universities”.

Resolution:
In recognition of society’s increased reliance on student news-gatherers to fulfill basic community information needs, and the importance of unfiltered information about the performance of educational institutions,

In recognition of the well-documented misapplication of Hazelwood censorship authority to impede the teaching of professional journalistic values and practices, which include the willingness to question the performance of governance institutions,

In recognition that the primary concern of the Supreme Court in Hazelwood was to permit schools to restrict editorial content “unsuitable for immature audiences”, a concern inapplicable at the postsecondary level.

In recognition of the combined 150 years’ experience of states with statutory student free-press guarantees, demonstrating that the Hazelwood level of administrative control is unnecessary for the advancement of legitimate educational objectives,

Be it resolved that:
The Board of Directors of AEJMC declares that no legitimate pedagogical purpose is served by the censorship of student journalism even if it reflects unflatteringly on school policies and programs, candidly discusses sensitive social and political issues, or voices opinions challenging to majority views on matters of public concern. The censorship of such speech is detrimental to effective learning and teaching, and it cannot be justified by reference to “pedagogical concerns.”

Be it further resolved that:
The AEJMC Board of Directors declares that the Hazelwood level of control over student journalistic and editorial expression is incompatible with the effective teaching of journalistic skills, values and practices at the collegiate level, and that institutions of postsecondary education should forswear reliance on Hazelwood as a legitimate source of authority for the governance of student and educator expression.

<< 2013 Resolutions

AEJMC President Releases a Statement on Leak Prosecutions

by

March 25, 2013 | The Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) is committed to freedom of speech and the press in the United States and abroad. AEJMC believes that this commitment must include a free exchange of information and ideas, even some information that the U.S. government considers or wishes to be “secret.” The Pentagon Papers, Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair and the existence of clandestine CIA prisons are examples in which secret government information was leaked to and publicized by the news media. In these and in many other cases, the dissemination of secret information served a greater good to American society by informing the public and by allowing for a needed debate on the ethics of secret government policies and covert actions. We believe that a democracy shrouded in secrecy encourages corruption, and we agree, as Justice Louis D. Brandeis of the U.S. Supreme Court said, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

AEJMC, therefore, calls attention to the current administration’s zeal in prosecuting those in government who leak secret information. Only three times in its first 92 years was the Espionage Act of 1917 used to prosecute government officials for leaking secret information to the press. However, the current administration has already brought six charges under this Act. The accused in all of these cases appear to represent whistleblowers, not those engaged in attempted espionage for foreign governments that “aid the enemy.”

We caution that the prosecution of U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, who released a trove of secret data to the WikiLeaks website, appears to be excessively punitive, with a chilling effect on a democracy’s requisite freedom of speech and the press. The release of this information advanced and clarified public debate on the morality of U.S. policy. Some observers even suggest that the honest (albeit secret) diplomatic assessments of Middle Eastern regimes helped spark the Arab Spring. Pfc. Bradley Manning has already admitted in military court that he did break the law through his actions. But to accuse him of “aiding the enemy” is egregious, given his credible stated intentions and the global breadth of the dissemination.

The government’s current approach toward leak prosecutions sends a message to the rest of the world that the United States’ actions are not fully aligned with its stated “exceptional” commitment to freedom of speech and the press as a human right.

Therefore, in recognition of the historical benefits of leaked information to our nation and to the principles and values of democracy, in particular the freedom of speech and the press, AEJMC calls on the U.S. government to make prosecutions as rare as possible, to consider the credible intent of the accused in these prosecutions, and to seek punishment that is proportionate and commensurate, not only with credible intent, but also with resulting harm and benefit to our democracy, its principles and values. Furthermore, we ask that prosecutors consider reviewing existing press leak cases in light of the public good and the First Amendment. AEJMC believes that this will ensure an environment in which the public will continue to be served through the occasional leaking of secret information by those whose credible intent was the public good.

<<PACS

2013 Abstracts

by

AEJMC 2013 Conference Paper Abstracts
Washington, DC • August 8 to 11

The following AEJMC groups conducted research competitions for the 2013 conference. The accepted paper abstracts are listed within each section.

Divisions:

Interest Groups:

Commissions:

Standing Committees:

<< AEJMC Abstracts Index

Response from AEJMC President, Carol J. Pardun

by

Jun. 11, 2010 | On Monday, June 7th, the President’s Advisory Council (PAC) and I sent a statement to the AEJMC membership. Within hours, the blogosphere was alive with comments concerning our statement. Many of the responses were against the statement. While we certainly expected criticism, we were stymied by the volume, tone, and accusations. As members of AEJMC, the PAC and I are staunch advocates for journalism and mass communication and do not represent any political entity or side. It was not our intention to categorize Obama’s presidency as a failure or to offend anyone by insensitivity in the statement. In fact, it grieves me to think that we may have given that impression to any AEJMC member, let alone an entire division or commission.

The PAC and I present the following as background on how we arrived at the statement released on June 7 along with some analysis about ways we think the process can be improved:

At the 2009 conference in Boston, the AEJMC membership approved the formation of a President’s Advisory Council. The PAC grew out of an initiative in AEJMC’s Strategic Plan, approved by the membership during the 2008 meeting in Chicago, to strengthen the organization’s identity, image and influence.

As explained at the Boston meeting, the PAC assists the AEJMC president “to weigh in on important issues that are central to the association’s mission.” The three-member subcommittee of the Standing Committee of Professional Freedom and Responsibility, elected by the AEJMC membership, is responsible for taking ideas from members to the president and advising the president on how to proceed. Committee membership rotates each year.

All statements by the PAC are released to the membership and posted on the AEJMC website. The PAC issued its first statement in October, and has since released three other statements. All statements have addressed issues central to AEJMC’s mission – which includes “supporting freedom of communication consonant with the ideal expressed in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”

The PAC’s most recent statement – issued June 7, 2010, and addressing issues similar to those in earlier statements – has hit a nerve with many AEJMC members. We appreciate the “uninhibited, robust and wide-open” debate this statement has prompted about the issue we addressed (journalists’ access to the president in open, full press conferences) and about the statement itself.

The fact that members might have substantive differences with any statement issued by AEJMC is not surprising; no single statement issued by an organization as large and diverse as ours will meet with approval from all members.

We do want to address concerns by some members about the motives and process behind our most recent statement (“Obama’s Promised…”). Concerns seem to center on three major themes:

  • The appropriateness of the statement in light of other issues. Throughout this first year for the PAC, a number of issues have been proposed for statements. The PAC generally discusses these issues in terms of their potential scope, impact and timeliness. Some issues, for instance, do not merit statements because they may be so local in focus as to lack relevance to a wider context. Others may have potential for wide impact but do not result in statements because they are resolved quickly (such as a legislative vote or administrative decision involving a public institution). Another consideration is the potential for action: Can a positive outcome result from a statement? (For instance, is a decision pending? Or, might public officials consider changing their communication practices?) This last point might be a reason the PAC chooses not to issue a statement about the political bias of a cable news network.

The PAC chose to address the issue involving the current White House administration and its relationship with journalists because, in the PAC’s estimation, the issue met the above-mentioned criteria. The PAC invites discussion and suggestions about how to more finely tune the general criteria it uses to judge topics for statements in light of the organization’s mission statement.

  • The accuracy of the statement. Several AEJMC members have publicly disputed the statement’s assertion that the current White House administration needs to be more accessible to the press. This assertion – and any arguments to the contrary — depend on how “accessible” is defined. In their arguments that the statement’s assertions were wrong, members have pointed to the work of scholar Martha Joynt Kumar (Towson University) and to news articles parsing the availability of the current president in relationship to previous administrations.

The PAC understood many of the same sources as supporting the statement’s concern: for the lack of open-ended, full-length press conferences by the president that allow unfettered questions on a variety of issues, and the lack of general, day-to-day access by reporters to the president. The numbers and anecdotal evidence support this assertion.

We acknowledge that our statement could have – and should have been – clearer about its definition of openness, and we’re grateful for the constructive feedback from AEJMC members in this regard. Although the PAC reads and consults with AEJMC members and non-members before issuing any statement, the process to ensure that releases are clear about their intent can and should be improved – and we welcome suggestions. We know the headline has a strong influence on how any statement is read and we now realize that we should insist our reviewers consider the headline to the statement as carefully as they do the statement. From now on, we will make sure that this process occurs in tandem.

  • The sensitivity of the statement. The PAC is open – and, indeed, eager – to understand more about how to avoid wording and/or assertions insensitive to the diverse populations (by gender, race, ability, sexuality and age, for instance) in any of the statements it has issued. Although the PAC has made it a practice of outside consultation before issuing any statement, it has been suggested – and we concur – that it would be wise to put a system into place that ensures consultation considering the diversity of AEJMC’s constituents. There are a number of ways to ensure such consultation.

We welcome input of AEJMC members – either individually or through the organization’s many divisions and interest groups – about the PAC’s work. To those who have provided us with constructive feedback: Thank you. We look forward – with your input – to improving the process as AEJMC implements its strategic plan.

Most of all, thank you for your concern about issues facing us and our profession as we continue to work toward upholding and safeguarding the tenets of the First Amendment.

<<PAC

AEJMC Supports Free Flow of Information Act

by

Oct. 7, 2009 | The Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) joins the dozens of news organizations supporting the Free Flow of Information Act (FFIA), a federal shield law that passed the House and is now under debate in the Senate. A key component of the bill is how a journalist will be defined. The current definition, attached to the bill as an amendment, is too restrictive.

The definition of those who gather and disseminate news and information of public interest should not be predicated on an individual’s employment, but instead on an individual’s journalistic practice.

Freelance journalists (who disseminate their work in a variety of ways, including through reputable blogs) and student journalists need the protections extended through the FFIA.

The AEJMC encourages lawmakers to expand the definition of a journalist to be more inclusive so that this important law will be strengthened.

Contacts: Carol Pardun, AEJMC President (803) 777-3244, pardunc@mailbox.sc.edu; Charles N. Davis, AEJMC Law & Policy Division Chair, (573) 882-5736 daviscn@missouri.edu.

This statement was issued by the 2009-10 President of AEJMC, Carol Pardun, University of South Carolina, and through the President’s Advisory Council (Marie Hardin, Pennsylvania State University; Paul Lester, California State University-Fullerton; Julianne Newton, University of Oregon).

<<PAC