Editorial: School safety should not compromise free speech
By Daily Bruin Staff
May 25, 2005 9:00 p.m.
Citing student safety concerns, East Bakersfield High School
Principal John Gibson has prohibited the publication of five school
newspaper articles on homosexuality. Campus security may be a
legitimate issue, but Gibson has unjustly denied students the right
to accept their own risks and exercise free speech rights.
According to district spokesman John Teves, “This decision
is for this campus at this time only. … It is not to be viewed as
a decision that can be applied to all campuses forever.”
Teves said there have been “a series of incidents on
campus in recent weeks that raise concern with the principal about
the impact of these articles.” He added that the principal,
and not students, is in a position to evaluate the security
situation on the campus.
He did not elaborate on the specifics of the incidents, citing
privacy rules and the confidential nature of security issues.
Bakersfield school officials may be right that there are
security risks involved in publishing articles about gay and
lesbian students, but their response is where they go wrong.
For one thing, at least some of the students are already openly
gay. One student, senior Janet Rangle, told CNN the decision to
censor the articles “made me feel like I was back where I was
““ in the closet again, hiding.”
Rangle is right. The school officials should be in the business
of making schools as safe as possible, but those safety measures
should not include the censorship of truthful news stories.
When asked how publishing the names of openly gay or lesbian
students could affect their safety, Teves said, “Not all
students know about all students. … There are a number of people
who don’t know the names.”
In banning the articles, Gibson referred to a “clear and
present” danger clause in the California Education Code that
allows school officials to block free speech for safety
reasons.
But Gibson should reconsider what constitutes a “clear and
present danger.” He might be surprised by the Supreme
Court’s view of free speech.
In 1949, Justice Douglas wrote: “(Free) speech is often
provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and
preconceptions. … Though not absolute, it is protected against
censorship or punishment, unless it is shown to likely produce a
clear and present danger of substantive evil that rises far above
public inconvenience, annoyance or unrest.”
So yes, maybe there is risk involved in printing articles about
gay and lesbian students at East Bakersfield High. But school
officials must let students and parents voluntarily accept those
risks.
Civil rights for blacks were not won without risk or unrest in
the 1950s and 1960s.
It required massive demonstrations and federal security
interventions before black children were allowed to attend classes
with white children.
Today the struggle is for LGBT rights, and school officials who
cower behind the cop-out of “security concerns” rob
students of their voice and their rights.
