After listening to high school journalists last week, I am simultaneously hopeful and worried about the future of the First Amendment in America.

The venue was the National High School Journalism Convention in Washington, D.C., an annual event sponsored by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association.

On the up side, encountering so many bright, committed and insightful young journalists from high schools across the country inspires hope. But on the downside, hearing their stories of censorship and control by school officials is cause for worry, if not despair.

It was especially disturbing to hear students describe how school administrators misuse their power of “prior review” to keep any hint of controversy out of the school paper. Not surprisingly, what is considered off-limits varies from region to region.

In one community, for example, school officials ban coverage of student religious clubs while permitting coverage of all other student clubs. But in a very different community, administrators instruct students not to report on LGBT issues because a few parents once complained about a profile of a gay student in the school paper.

Under current law, school officials may review what goes into school publications (though they aren’t required by any law to do so). But they may not turn “prior review” into “prior restraint” with overly broad and vague restrictions on what student reporters may cover.

Unfortunately, many public school administrators are either unfamiliar with the First Amendment — or simply ignore it.

The stories of school censorship I heard at the convention are consistent with trends I have seen around the country. A growing number of public schools restrict school newspapers (or shut them down entirely) and, in other ways, limit student political and religious speech.

“It is both strange and troubling that in the “land of the free” so many school officials are afraid of freedom.

Here’s the irony: Schools that give students meaningful opportunities to exercise their First Amendment freedoms are safer, more successful learning environments than schools that treat students like prison inmates.

One such school is Federal Hocking High School in Stewart, Ohio, located in rural Appalachia where students learn about democracy and freedom by actually practicing democracy and freedom. This means, for example, Federal Hocking students serve on all school committees, participating in everything from revising the student handbook to hiring faculty. Students are also given full responsibility for all student events and various school programs. And a student serves on the local school board.

Administrators at Federal Hocking understand that when school officials choose between safety and freedom, they make a false and dangerous choice. Silencing student voice, installing metal detectors and other efforts to make schools “safe” are, at best, stopgap measures that paper over the root causes of student alienation and frustration — and send dissent underground.

If we are serious about creating better schools, places with fewer discipline problems and higher academic achievement, then students must have a meaningful voice in shaping the life of the school.

My advice to the student journalists at the conference is the same advice I would give to any student attending a public high school that ignores or censors student speech:

If your school newspaper is subject to prior review, start a campaign to end it. Prior review stifles freedom of the press and undermines the work of student journalists.

If your school district doesn’t protect First Amendment freedoms, petition the administration and the school board, organize rallies and speak out for policies that uphold religious liberty, freedom of speech, press, assembly and petition. Exercise your rights to make the case for freedom.

If students aren’t involved in decision-making at your school, seek student representation on school committees and the school board to ensure students are involved in decisions concerning school policies, culture and governance.

Go home, speak out, and stand up for freedom. Remind your administrators and school board members that a country committed to democracy and freedom needs schools committed to democracy and freedom.

In a free society that would remain free, schools must be our laboratories of freedom.

Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Center of the Washington-based Newseum Institute. [email protected]

By KENT STEWARD
Hays City Commissioner

I oppose the request from the owners of The Mall for a Community Improvement District to collect a 1 percent sales tax on site for up to 22 years to raise as much as $3.15 million for improvements to the facility. This is an important issue for our community, so I wish to state clearly the reasons for my opposition.

During a recent meeting, Commissioner Eber Phelps pointed out that I had spoken in favor of the proposed convention center, which would have been funded with a CID, and he asked why I did not support this similar plan for The Mall. It was a fair question.

He was correct that I was generally in favor of the convention center, although my support was conditional on the final details that had yet to be resolved, most especially who the owner would be. And that is the crux of my opposition to a CID for The Mall. As a public facility, the convention center would have been owned, eventually if not at the outset, by the community. The Mall is privately owned.

This is a critical distinction that some either do not see or do not appreciate. The United States fought for its independence mostly over the question of taxes. Taxation is a tool given by citizens to their elected officials, and that authority should not be abused. I believe taxes should be levied only for government operations and services, not to put money into the pockets of private individuals. Municipal taxes should pay for such things as police protection, fire protection, roads, sewers, drinking water, airports, parks and libraries. It also is appropriate to levy a special tax to build a public swimming pool or a sports complex or a convention center. A majority of commissioners — or, in the case of a public vote, a majority of citizens — might decide that such a project is unaffordable or unneeded, but it is not fundamentally inappropriate to pay for a public project with taxpayer dollars.

Related story: Commission expected to vote on mall taxing district Thursday

The proposed CID for The Mall is a case of Robin Hood in reverse. It would take from the poor and give to the rich. The taxpayers of Hays include elderly people on fixed incomes, struggling young families and the working poor of all descriptions. I think we can agree that the owners of the Mall are wealthy, at least by most people’s standards. So, in practical terms, the CID would take money from poor people in Hays and give it to the rich owners of The Mall. It also bothers me that those owners do not live in Hays. I’ve never seen them, only their representatives.

Some of the proponents of the CID point out that the impact would be voluntary because people could opt not to shop at The Mall and thereby avoid paying the new sales tax. That is true in theory but not in practice. As Commissioner Phelps pointed out recently, receipts from the taxing district that was created for Home Depot show that people shop there regardless of the higher sales tax.

The fact that the rich owners of The Mall believe they should receive a handout from Hays taxpayers is emblematic of the mentality that is destroying America. Just about everyone seems to believe the government owes them something, rich or poor. At least poor people actually need the help. Our federal government is nearly $18 trillion in debt and on the verge of bankruptcy, and it is this mentality of entitlement that is the root cause.

As a nation, we are also seeing the gulf grow ever wider between the rich and the poor. These sorts of inappropriate tax handouts to wealthy individuals serve to widen that gulf.

In a presentation to the Hays City Commission, one of the representatives of The Mall made a point of reading off a very long list of Kansas communities that have created CIDs. He seemed to think that legitimized the request. I think just the opposite. It shows that this abuse of taxation is widespread. I might be accused of alarmism for saying that a $3.15 million CID for The Mall will contribute to the economic decline of the nation and make the gulf between rich and poor even wider, but as they pointed out, Hays is not an isolated example. This abuse is rampant across the nation.

Finally, I do not enjoy having to put this point forward, but I simply have no confidence in the owners and operators of The Mall. I do not understand what local proponents of the CID see in the performance to date by the owners and operators that would entice them to become business partners with them. I do not think local proponents would want to invest their own money in this enterprise, but they want to invest your money.

As you can see, this is not a difficult decision for me, but I concede two points that cause me to question myself to some extent.

First, wise people know you should never say never. As great as my conviction is against handing out tax money to private companies, I admit there are examples where it seems to have worked. One is local. The limited partnership in which the city provided money to the Liberty Group for the renovation of downtown buildings contributed to an unprecedented revitalization of structures in our core area. That was before I joined the Commission, but I believe the city contributed about $100,00 to that project. Another example would be the Village West development in Wyandotte County, which has sparked an economic resurgence in that community. Principles are important, but so is facing reality. If I believed the owners and operators of The Mall could deliver on what they are promising, I would at least consider supporting the CID, but I see nothing in their performance that makes me believe that.

And second, I very much want The Mall to survive and prosper. I believe the owners should invest their own money and to earn their own profits, but if the Hays City Commission approves the CID tonight, I will continue to shop at The Mall. I hope those of you who can afford it will do the same. I want The Mall to succeed for the good of our community.