When the Springdale School District administration invoked a harsh form of censorship -- is there any other kind? -- on its student newspaper at Har-Ber High School last November, it sent a clear message.
Something about the student journalists' coverage was so awful, foul, egregious and over the line that it had to immediately be blocked by preventing viewers of the newspaper's website from reading their stories. The administration came down in the hardest possible way against a student publication.
What’s the point?
Examination of Springdale’s student transfer policies is a reasonable response to questions raised by student journalists about past practices.
What horrible infraction had these young journalists committed? Through interviews with student athletes, they explored the question of student transfers between Har-Ber and the district's other traditional high school, Springdale High. School transfers aren't meant to be based on sports interests, such as an opportunity for more playing time. Rather, district policy focused on academic or instructional opportunities. Still, according to the school newspaper's coverage, at least a couple of the student athletes suggested their transfers where driven at least in part by athletics.
An accompanying editorial criticized the practice of transfers and suggested the district review the policies involved.
That was enough for the district to bar the articles from appearing on the website and led to disciplinary action against the newspaper's faculty adviser.
It was an overreaction by administrators who didn't care for students having the audacity to raise such questions in such a public way. It led to news coverage in publications and TV news shows across the nation and, eventually, to administrators relenting. The offending articles were allowed in early December to be reposted to the school newspaper's website.
Now, the irony: The lead paragraph of a Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette story on Jan. 8 said district officials "are considering revising a policy on intradistrict student transfers and how athletic eligibility should factor into those moves."
We certainly won't contend today that the execution of the Har-Ber Herald's coverage was flawless. Like any student effort, the stories and editorial showed room for improvement. But what got the newspaper staff in such hot water with the administration wasn't libel, obscenity, an unwarranted invasion of privacy or any other infractions that might merit administrative intervention.
The student journalists did raise a legitimate issue that more than a few people within their community -- the high school -- were talking about. They explored questions about it and its impact. As good journalism does sometimes, their coverage held a mirror up to a problem, in this case execution of a policy.
Now, based on the district's plans to review the policy, one can surmise that what the community saw reflected back through that coverage needed to be addressed.
Journalism -- using long-developed practices of reporting to gather information and report it to readers -- isn't always kind, neat and tidy. Indeed, it can be a challenging business, not without imperfections.
The student journalists certainly learned some lessons, particularly that leaders can sometimes react aggressively to reporting that rocks their boats. When we live in an era in which the president calls journalists "enemies of the people," who can be surprised when others feel they have permission to try to shut down news coverage rather than consider the issues it raises?
Perhaps it is worth crediting leadership within the Springdale School District for a willingness to examine the policies involving student transfers, including some of the issues Har-Ber's newspaper exposed in its reporting. That's a reasonable response to questions surrounding transfer practices, far more so than attempting to ban the questions.
Commentary on 01/13/2019