By Caitlin McCoy
Feature Editor
Angela Rolston, a student in a publication at Bellevue East High School interviewed the superintendent, John Deegan, about the stimulus dollars. However, while reviewing the Q&A Rolston had compiled together, Deegan completely changed his responses. He said that he did this to prevent unnecessary controversy. Deegan argued that he did not know Rolston’s intentions prior to the interview.
My opinion on this dilemma is that the Q&A should have been left as it was originally. Deegan did not have the right to change his answers regardless of if he felt his words would give people the wrong idea. Rolston should have either not given him the Q&A to look at or should have made it very clear he could not change it at all. The situation was not handled perfectly on either end but the primary dilemma was because of Deegan’s wrong action of changing his answers.
On top of this issue, Brad Stueve, the principal at Bellevue East High School, decided that an article should be removed from an issue because it was inappropriate for a high school newspaper. This article was supporting the idea that students should attend board meetings to be knowledgeable of current topics being discussed.
In this situation, Stueve had no reason to stop students from attending board meetings. There is no rule preventing students from going to the meetings and therefore Stueve can’t suddenly disallow an article supporting it. Stueve’s action only makes others believe he is hiding something or that he does not want students to benefit. Either way, Stueve did not make a good choice.
It is unfortunate that both of these dilemmas occurred at the same high school with administration. However, every facility has its conflicts. Although both Deegan and Stueve had high positions within the school, they did not have the right to prohibit articles that were absolutely acceptable just because their opinion contradicted the material.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
So I just read your blog regarding the Bellevue East High School incident, and I wanted to let you know that I am an editor for this publication and that I am appalled at the things you wrote in this blog. You said that Angela should not have given the Q & A to Deegan, which in itself, is a factual error. Our principal took the Q & A (By the way we have to submit our publication to our principal before we print, it is not our choice) and our principal took the Q & A to Deegan without any of our knowledge. You really should have been more thorough with your research before making such an offensive accusation like saying that Angela and the administration, we were in the wrong. Quite frankly I believe our first amendment rights were violated, however you are making it seem as if we had a say in the matter, and we most certainly did not. Also, with the assistance of the Student Press Law Center we did in fact get the okay to publish the article in a later issue, which you failed to mention as well. Not only that, but our principal did not prohibit any other publication of controversial issues throughout the year such as a lesbian teacher in our school who is getting married, drug use, abstinence only education, abortion, marijuana legalization, immigration and many more. I mention these to hopefully open your eyes that, although our principal made a mistake, he is not at all what you guys made him sound like in your blog, it is all the superintendent and the district office who should have been held accountable for this instance. I understand that I sound harsh, however, if students are ever to receive more first amendment rights, those rights will not come by printing a story (or blog) that is not factual, ignorant, and misguided.
Respectfully,
Jackson D. Booth
Post a Comment