Endorsement by School Newspaper Is Questioned

Here is what I think to be an interesting story at the intersection of high school newspapers and politics. It seems that the editorial board of Montgomery (MD) Blair High School has irritated a long-time state Senator by endorsing an opponent.

But an editorial endorsing Jamin Raskin, an American University law professor running for the Democratic nomination for state Senate in District 20, has rankled the district's longtime incumbent, Sen. Ida G. Ruben (D-Montgomery).

Ruben said the paper's staff members failed to give her an opportunity to talk to them. Students at Silver Chips say the state senator did not respond to their requests for an interview. Now some are questioning whether high school newspapers should even be in the business of endorsing political candidates.

The disputed endorsement, written by the paper's six-person editorial board, says Raskin's "steadfast dedication to protecting the voice of students, especially our own Blazers, makes him the ideal choice for students in the State Senate race." In 1997, Raskin defended Blair students fighting to air a documentary featuring a debate on same-sex marriage.

After Ruben's staff spotted the endorsement on the Internet and told the senator, she contacted Blair Principal Phillip Gainous and complained that she had not been allowed to participate.

The story goes on to detail the efforts by the student journalists to contact Ruben for an interview, but that efforts proved fruitless. So the students did what every other newspaper would do, they ran with their story. Now the incumbent is irritated and now looking like a whiny child who didn't get their way.

Ruben said she does not recall a conversation about the editorial and did not receive any follow-up messages. She believes that the editorial, with the headline "The Right Choice for District 20," distorts many of her positions.

But Silver Chips staffers said the endorsement was based on extensive research.

"We stand by our story, and we hope it speaks for itself," [incoming editor Isaac] Arnsdorf said.

Ruben has asked the paper's adviser, Maureen Freeman, for a follow-up interview.

So Ruben, mad that she didn't follow up with an award winning student newspaper wants a chance to get her say.

"I should be able to have an interview with the young man and have a column written, which would give me equal time in the newspaper, which I believe is appropriate," Ruben said. "I did make one request -- that when I'm interviewed by this young man, that someone be in this room with me. I don't want people to say I intimidated the young man."

But, Ruben acknowledged, it is unlikely a follow-up interview will happen; students are on summer vacation.

The above paragraphs are the crux of the matter. Ruben is demanding equal time in a newspaper. She is no more entitled to equal time on a editorial in a student newspaper than in a commercial newspaper like the Post or USA Today. We have, as a nation, accepted that student newspapers don't have the same content control rights as newspapers run by adults, but are we now going to insist on equal time in student editorials? What kind of lesson about the Freedom of the Press does that signal? The article in the Post seems to highlight only one adult in the whole affair--Isaac Arnsdorf-- and he is 16 years old. The school's principal, Philip Gainous, after receiving a call from an upset Ruben, said:

"I support the newspaper as a whole," Gainous said. "I don't have a problem with the students, but this is something the paper need not have done."

He added, "For the newspaper -- the school newspaper -- to endorse a candidate, that's not appropriate."

Why is it not appropriate? Some of the students at Montgomery Blair will surely be old enough to vote in the upcoming election. To be certain, every student at the school will be affected by the selection of the candidates in November, even if they can't vote.

I believe that student newspapers have suffered enough censorship and limitations. They often cannot discuss controversial topics, such as abortion or sexual orientation. Their words and advertsising are limited if the school has a legitimate educational quibble with the subject matter of the newspaper. But politics is a valid subject for the newspaper, indeed for any newspaper, and not just school politics. The decisions that Ruben or Raskin will make in Annapolis will affect their lives of these students and their families, is their opinion not worthy because they are under 18? The student newspaper is not the only forum avaialable to these students since they lack the right to vote, but it apparently is one of the most effective.

The fundamental precept behind freedom of speech and freedom of the press is that the speech that needs the most protection is the controversial speech. The fact that high school newspapers don't reguarly endorse candidates for elective office should not be the bar to doing so. This is speech that should not only be protected but encourages. The editors of Montgomery Blair should be applauded for the civic-mindedness and for remembering their friends.

With so many young people disengaged from the political process, it is refreshing and even inspiring to see some students take not only an interest but an active role in the political arena. As for State Senator Ruben, perhaps she needs to revisit the Constitution and the law regarding newspapers. She not entitled to equal time. She was afforded, apparently, opportunities to be interviewed and declined, probably because she figured it was a student newspaper and not worth her time and effort.

For the students of Montgomery Blair, I stand in applause. Don't let the adults in the system deter you from your rights as journalists. Draw the line here and say, "no farther." The restrictions on student press are so many that this is where the line should be drawn. And, if you get sued, give me a call, I would love to work on this case.