Teen Fired for Interviewing Gay Students

Ann Long, editor in chief of Troy High School's Oracle newspaper in beautiful Fullerton, California, is being asked to step down for interviewing three students about coming out of the closet. The school district's justification is interesting:

Patricia Howell, deputy superintendent for the Fullerton Joint Union High School District […] said Long, 18, was being punished for violating the ethical standards of the journalism class and a state education code that prohibits asking students about their sexuality without parental permission.

"We're not saying there is anything morally wrong with the article," she said. "Freedom of speech is not at issue. Confidentiality and privacy rights are the issue."

She said Long had violated the section of the California education code that requires written parental permission before asking students questions about their or their parents' "personal beliefs or practices in sex, family life, morality, and religion," as the code states.

I guess 75% of my high-school conversation was illegal, then…. Whole L.A. Times story here.

Comments

[andy]

Just when I think I've heard the last of the completely absurd rules, laws and regulations, Reason comes to the rescue.

Do authorities ever form their own thoughts? Do they act on them? Do they do this inane shit knowing it's irrational by saying "rules is rules"?

[Gary Gunnels]

*shakes head*

*drinks absinthe*

[MP]

Wouldn't that requirement be for state employees only (i.e. the teachers/administrators)? I can't see how it could justifiably be used against a student.

[Ken Shultz]

If I was the parent of a 15 year-old kid, I wouldn't want a school paper publishing a story about my kid coming out of the closet without my permission.

...That might be a good reason to reject the story, but it's not a good reason to ask the student editor to step down.

"According to Long, her journalism teacher, Georgette Cerrutti, worked closely with her on drafts of the article for more than a month, at one point discussing with her the impact it might have on the students' families."

"Long said Cerrutti never told her she needed to get the parents' approval."

From my limited perspective, it looks to me like they asked the wrong person to step down.

P.S. I've never seen anything beautiful in Fullerton.

[D Anghelone]

I guess 75% of my high-school conversation was illegal, then....

Were your conversations published?

[Matt Welch]

Ken -- Just trying to disprove Teachout's assertion that no one remembers Johnny Carson lines. Also, I think downtown F-town is damned cute ... I'm a sucker for crumbling old SoCal downtowns full of thrift stores (Bellflower, Ventura, etc.).

D -- The part of the code quoted says nothing about publication, just about "asking."

[Ball of Confusion]

A perfectly valuable lesson in the consequences of doing anything remotely risky. She could have done a story on how nutrional the student lunch program is or on ways that the students can support the troops.

[D Anghelone]

Matt: The part of the code quoted says nothing about publication, just about "asking."

"When high school journalist Ann Long sent a recent edition of her school's newspaper to the printer, she hoped her profile of three gay students would generate some discussion in the hallways."

>

"Howell, who wouldn't discuss Long by name, said district and school officials did not object to the story's content. She said Long, 18, was being punished for violating the ethical standards of the journalism class and a state education code that prohibits asking students about their sexuality without parental permission."

Your final comment indicates you see this as a free speech issue. I do not.

[Matt Welch]

D -- At the risk of repeating myself, the quoted part of the code says *nothing* about whether the asker is inquiring for journalistic reasons.

ode that requires written parental permission before asking students questions about their or their parents' "personal beliefs or practices in sex, family life, morality, and religion," as the code states

There is no "journalist," or "publish" or anything like that there. If those words are indeed in the code, the article doesn't say so.

[Gary Gunnels]

Does anyone have a citation for the code section?

[Mo]

I've never seen anything beautiful in Fullerton
Ken,
Obviously, you've never been to the CSUF campus. Plenty of hotties there. 🙂 Seriously, old downtown Fullerton is a really nice area. Cool shops and streets. Would you prefer the blandness of Irvine?

[cdunlea]

"We're not saying there is anything morally wrong with the article," she said. "Freedom of speech is not at issue. Confidentiality and privacy rights are the issue."

Q: When is a right not a right?
A: When it is waived.

So they're saying the students in question DO NOT have the right to voluntarily talk about a personal matter concerning themselves? Then the next time one of these kids doesn't turn in his homework, he's perfectly correct to respond, "I would tell you why I don't have it with me, but it has to do with my religion, my sexual preference and moral beliefs, so I cannot legally answer you per state law."

See how many weeks in detention that gets you.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

Sexuality is an encompassing term. There are a whole boatload of topics that are now off-limits for kids at that school.

[B.P.]

"Gee, you're really cute. Do you mind if I get permission from your parents to ask you about your sexual orientation"?

It's like dating at Antioch College.

[SR]

The statutory language appears to be from California Education Code Sec. 51513:

"No test, questionnaire, survey, or examination containing any questions about the pupil's personal beliefs or practices in sex, family life, morality, and religion, or any questions about the pupil's parents' or guardians' beliefs and practices in sex, family life, morality, and religion, shall be administered to any pupil in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, unless the parent or guardian of the pupil is notified in writing that this test, questionnaire, survey, or examination is to be administered and the parent or guardian of the pupil gives written permission for the pupil to take this test, questionnaire, survey, or examination."

I'd say that interviewing people for a newspaper article wouldn't fall under that.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I think discussion of sexual being is much different then sexual activity. If these kids only talked about what they ARE vs. what they DO, then the administrators are clearly bigots.

[Gary Gunnels]

What is Fullerton, Ca. like?

[Ken Shultz]

I'm not a journalist.

Having said that, it's my understanding that most newspapers won't publish the name of a 15 year old kid in connection with a story like this--not because there's a law against doing so but because it's imprudent and, potentially, might cause harm to a child. It isn't a function of law; that is, it's a function of editorial policy.

The people most professional journalists answer to, even the journalists at Reason, probably don't think much of stories that "out" 15 year-old children by name--with or without a parent's permission.

...I don't think that's a First Amendment issue.

[Lowdog]

Ball of Confusion - I just happen to be listening to that song right this minute.

[Matt Welch]

GG -- Working/middle-class burgh in the Southern California sprawl, on the northwestern edge of Orange County. Sort of a neighborhood red-headed stepchild in terms of local attractions -- nearby Buena Park has Knotts Berry Farm, Anaheim has Disneyland and two professional sports teams, and even Yorba Linda has the Nixon Museum (a must-visit). Big Cal State University there, rapidly growing Latino population, some interesting (for the area) geography (read: some hills). Aforementioned underrated downtown.

[Julian Sanchez]

Y'know, when I was editing my HS paper, we ran a story--without using the names of any of the subjects--about what it was like to be a closeted gay students. It seems as though it's increasingly possible for kids to come out in HS, but even in NJ just a few minutes outside NYC, it was a pretty hostile climate then. I thought maybe a piece about a kid who was worried he had to hide who he was because he'd walk through the hall and hear "faggot" used as a term of contempt a dozen times a day might, help, make people reconsider whether that was the kind of climate they wanted to create.

The day the issue went out, I was gratified to see a group of kids standing around pointing at the cover story, obviously talking about it. Until I got close enough to hear what they were saying. They were trying to figure out who it was so they could beat him up.

All of which is by way of saying, I understand Ken's concern. On the other hand, we're talking about kids who are, well, out. Presumably their orientation's common knowledge. Whatever the parents think, the kids are obviously already talking to their peers about it. The law seems clearly enoguh geared to stop *school officials* from prying into kids private business, which seems a different matter.

[Gary Gunnels]

Julian Sanchez,

One should always keep in mind that children are monsters. 🙂

[joe]

"Wouldn't that requirement be for state employees only (i.e. the teachers/administrators)? I can't see how it could justifiably be used against a student."

School newspapers are considered school-sponsored activities, and school sponsored speech. Any rule that applies to facutly applies to kids working for the school paper. The "reporter" in question was, legally, an agent of the state.

[pigwiggle]

These parents need all the help they can get cramming their kid right back into that closet.

[MP]

Any rule that applies to facutly applies to kids working for the school paper.

By that logic, any punishment that is to be done should be done to the faculty overseer of the paper.

[Julian Sanchez]

"Any rule that applies to facutly applies to kids working for the school paper. The 'reporter' in question was, legally, an agent of the state."

I wonder: does that entail that a student columnist is subject to the same restrictions on (to pick just one example) religious advocacy that would apply to a teacher instructing a class? Because that would appear to constrain the scope of permissible student speech (at least in the context of a school paper) quite severely indeed.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

...I don't think that's a First Amendment issue.

The code doesn't say anything about the newspaper - it says that a person can't even ask or discuss it.

It is most certainly a first amendment issue.

[Ken Shultz]

An editorial policy of not publishing the names of children is not a First Amendment issue.

...Context!

[The Dude]

I don't think that's a First Amendment issue.

Walter, this isn't one of your First Amendment issues...

[Ball of Confusion]

Lowdog (belated): rock on, wish I could say the same.

[Larry Yudelson]

I would hope that no students had been previously interviewed on question as, say, the morality of downloading illegal mp3s, or their feelings about the winter holidays.

It seems the school district was negligent in not printing up the parental approval forms for the reporters to hand out.

"Dear parent,

Please sign this form indicating that you allow your child to speak to a reporter for the high school newspaper."

[Russ D]

The "reporter" in question was, legally, an agent of the state

The "reporter" in question was, for all intents and purposes, a ward of the state.

[Warren]

I guess 75% of my high-school conversation was illegal

What the hell were you talking about the other 25% of the time?

[jc]

At WORST, this is an honest mistake that hurt no one except the feelings of a parent who has a problem with their child's sexuality. Perhaps this parent feels the need to have another student kicked out of their volunteer eductionally-enriching job because of it, but it seems pretty fucked up to go along with that sort of thinking just because an ill-conceived rule was enacted. All I could think of is asking this parent "Exactly how have you been victimized?"

[JimBob]

Not another Reason blog about oppressed sodomites. The entire subject is getting rather boring. Andrew Sullivan with his almost daily pronouncement that we're on the verge of a theocracy because most Americans find the idea of 2 men getting married repulsive.

So today were are witnessing
The Rise of the Homosexual Super Citizen

Also we can't leave out the organization that really fights for individual rights the ACLU. ACLU behind Illinois'forced hiring of 'gays'

[D Anghelone]

SR,

Thanks for the citation.

Julian,

"Howell...said district and school officials did not object to the story's content."

[Gary Gunnels]

JimBob,

Yes, eleven states recently banned via constitutional amendment same-sex marraige. Yes, homosexuals certainly are "super citizens." *guffaw*

[Matt Welch]

Warren -- Baseball.

joe -- Though it's been watered down since, the Supreme Court has opined that "freedom of speech doesn't end at the schoolhouse door" (not an exact quote). Students (at least back in my day) can do all sorts of things verboten to teachers, from wearing outlandish clothing to (at my high school, at least) dipping tobacco in class.

Ken -- We don't know if that's an "editorial policy," and in fact I think we can conclude the opposite, given the paper's advisor's role in crafting the story.

JimBob -- I don't know how you can even walk straight, with Gaydar that strong.

[Mark]

A review of the California Education Code (searchable online here) appears to indicate that the relevant sections apply to school-to-student communications rather than student-to-student.

Perhaps publishing the information in a school-to-student communications document (ie the school newspaper would be in violation. But I can't see where one student asking another about these issues would apply...

Where's Volokh when you need him?

Anyway, here are cites from the relevant sections:

51513. No test, questionnaire, survey, or examination containing any questions about the pupil's personal beliefs or practices in sex,
family life, morality, and religion, or any questions about the
pupil's parents' or guardians' beliefs and practices in sex, family
life, morality, and religion, shall be administered to any pupil in
kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, unless the parent or
guardian of the pupil is notified in writing that this test,
questionnaire, survey, or examination is to be administered and the
parent or guardian of the pupil gives written permission for the
pupil to take this test, questionnaire, survey, or examination.

49083. (a) The California School Information Services program
administrator shall submit to the State Board of Education a plan to
administer, coordinate, and manage the development and implementation
of an electronic statewide school information system to address
current problems of information exchange. The plan shall be updated
with State Board of Education approval annually.
(b) The plan shall prescribe the set of statewide data elements
and codes to be implemented by the California School Information
Services. The data elements and codes that are prescribed to be
implemented shall comply with Sections 49061 to 49079, inclusive, and
Sections 49602 and 56347, with Sections 430 to 438, inclusive, of
Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, with the Information
Practices Act of 1977 (Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1798) of
Title 1.8 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code), and with the
Family Education Rights and Privacy Act statute (20 U.S.C. Secs.
1232g and 1232h and related federal regulations.
(c) The plan shall prescribe the statewide standards for security
of the California School Information Services. Those standards shall
include, but not be limited to, processes and procedures for
handling both paper and electronic data, training for staff that
handle the data, administrative management of the data system, and
technical measures to secure the data contained in the electronic
system.
(d) The data elements and codes set forth in the plan approved by
the State Board of Education, as transferred through any electronic
statewide school information system, may not contain any questions of
items that solicit or invite disclosure of the personal beliefs or
practices of a pupil, or his or her parent or guardian, as to sex,
family life, morality, or religion, nor may it contain any question
designed to evaluate personal behavioral characteristics including,
but not limited to, honesty, integrity, sociability, or self-esteem.

49091.24. A teacher shall have the right to refuse to submit to any
evaluation or survey conducted by the school district concerning the
following:
(a) Personal values, attitudes, and beliefs.
(b) Sexual orientation.
(c) Political affiliations or opinions.
(d) Critical appraisals of other individuals with whom the teacher
has a family relationship.
(e) Religious affiliations or beliefs.

60614. Notwithstanding Section 51513, no test, examination, or
assessment given as part of the statewide pupil assessment program
shall contain any questions or items that solicit or invite
disclosure of a pupil's, or his or her parents' or guardians',
personal beliefs or practices in sex, family life, morality, or
religion nor shall it contain any question designed to evaluate
personal behavioral characteristics, including, but not limited to,
honesty, integrity, sociability, or self esteem.

[Ball of Confusion]

Since she doesn't appear to have actually violated the state code, hopefully the author is of a mind to decline the school's invitation to resign her post. When the school district ends up ultimately doling out a few hundred K for legal expenses when they lose the ensuing case, it might make them think a little harder next time around. (Not as preposterous as it mind sound; a similar penalty was just levied in the school district right next door to me over a free speech violation.)

[Gary Gunnels]

Matt Welch,

Asl, various state Supreme Courts have found that state constitutions protect a student's right against coercive regulations regardin hair length, clothing, etc. Alaska is one of those.

[D Anghelone]

Perhaps publishing the information in a school-to-student communications document (ie the school newspaper would be in violation. But I can't see where one student asking another about these issues would apply...

And asking is not the issue here. The students' names were being used in the paper.

[kmw]

JimBob,

Quit fighting your gay urges, and just give into them. You'll feel so much better.

[Davy]

Even if the newspaper constitutes a "school to student publication", it is not a "..test, questionnaire, survey or examination..." as spelled out in 51513.

Nor is it "...data elements and codes set forth in the plan approved by the State Board of Education, as transferred through any electronic statewide school information system..." as spelled out in 49083(d).

Nor do 49091.24 or 60614 apply.

So whether it was published in the newspaper or not, how does it violate the Code?

[Tony]

OK, I'll put on my Volokh disguise and take a stab at this (disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer).

I searched the Education Code for a minute, and I couldn't find the exact law they're referring to. I'll assume it's one of the ones Mark refers to above.

I know jack and shit about this law, so I'll just worry about the First Amendment implications of the way they're enforcing it.

Looks to me like the school is full of shit on this one. Contrary to what joe, Ken and Russ said above, student journalism is generally protected (in California, at least, this is established by both state law and judicial precedent). The exception is that faculty advisors and administrators are allowed to censor student journalists, but only for some educational purpose. In other words, if they're "censoring" in their regular practice of editing and advising the student newspaper, that's OK. Some of this depends on exactly how the student paper functions -- if it acts more like a class assignment, more censorship is allowed; if it acts more like an independent newspaper with occasional school oversight, then less censorship is allowed.

(Insert obligatory libertarian ojection that eliminating public schools would take care of everything)

In this case, the article was already vetted by the journalism teacher. The school has no right to punish the girl for exercising her 1st Amendment rights.

--end Volokh impersonation--

At my high school paper, way back in the mid-90s, we ran a story a lot like this. It was a feature on 2 or 3 gay students, and I think we either used their whole names or their real first names. Anyway, everybody knew who they were. Nobody got in any trouble, and the gay kids (one of whom actually worked at the paper) didn't get any more shit than they already did. This was near San Francisco, but I don't remember the kids in my high school as being very enlightened on matters of sexual orientation.

[Russ D]

Hey man, don't imply that I agreed with joe! My comment was more along the obligatory line of eliminating mandatory education!

[Ken Shultz]

"Contrary to what joe, Ken and Russ said above..."

I wish you'd take a closer look at what Ken said above.

...Is your problem that I think that when professional journalists refrain from disclosing the names of children, it isn't a First Amendment issue? Maybe you don't like that I think that if anyone should have been asked to leave it should have been the teacher rather than the student? Maybe you don't like that I said that if I had a 15 year old child, I wouldn't want the school newspaper to "out" my kid without my permission?

Honestly, I don't get it.

[Tony]

Sorry, Ken, I guess I read too quickly.

I think it's relevant here that these kids were all out already, to their families and their classmates. The newspaper wasn't "outing" them.

I don't know if that changes things from a legal perspective, but it explains why the journalism teacher allowed it in the first place. No one was invading the kids' privacy. They volunteered the information.

Also, it would be tough for high school kids to do decent journalism if they had to ask their subjects' parents for permission to write about these kind of topics. True, they're not 18, but there's a difference between a high school kid talking about his sexual orientation and a 12-year-old talking about it.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Hasn't this kid ever heard of a blog?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"JimBob -- I don't know how you can even walk straight, with Gaydar that strong."

It helps when the guy walks on his knuckles.

[joe]

"Though it's been watered down since, the Supreme Court has opined that "freedom of speech doesn't end at the schoolhouse door" (not an exact quote). Students (at least back in my day) can do all sorts of things verboten to teachers, from wearing outlandish clothing to (at my high school, at least) dipping tobacco in class."

That is the doctrine for student speech, but my point is, this is not legally the speech of a student, but the speech of the school itself. Obviously, the government can limit the freedom of speech of its own agents in the performance of their official duties.

The problem is that a school newspaper is neither fish nor fowl - it's kinda sorta the speech of individual students, but it's also kinda sorta an officially endorsed publication of the school administration.

If the student in question had asked these queries of her classmates and, as Fletch suggests, reported them on a blog, the school would have no leg to stand on if it tried to sanction her.

I'm not saying this is right, btw, just teasing out the legal issues.

[kevrob]

The "reporter" in question was, legally, an agent of the state.

If that is so, then "newspapers" owned by government-owned schools are - in spirit, anyway - unconstitutional.

My knee is jerking, so just let me point out that all schools should be private. 🙂

Whether it is legal or not, it isn't wise for a 15-18 year old kid to have his "declaration of gayness" preserved in print at a young age. He just may be "going through a phase," and, while certainly some if not most who explore the same-sex route as teenagers stay with it as adults, should they switch teams when they are older their earlier enthusiasm may prove embarrasing. Maybe it shouldn't be, but we live in the real world.

Kevin

[andy]

"I think it's relevant here that these kids were all out already, to their families and their classmates. The newspaper wasn't "outing" them.

I don't know if that changes things from a legal perspective, but it explains why the journalism teacher allowed it in the first place. No one was invading the kids' privacy. They volunteered the information."

No shit, Ken. You act like this was some sort of slander.

But God forbid that "children" be allowed to discuss their personal feelings and experiences in school.

If you have kids, I feel sorry for them.

[D Anghelone]

But God forbid that "children" be allowed to discuss their personal feelings and experiences in school.

God forbid that you should read the article.

[high school reporter]

Wow! You dug up that story I wrote in 11th grade?

[andy]

"God forbid that you should read the article."

What makes you think I didn't?

[D Anghelone]

What makes you think I didn't?

There's nothing in the article to suggest the chillun can't discuss their personal feelings and experiences in school.

[andy]

I was talking about Ken Shultz's responses to the article, not the article itself, Einstein.

[D Anghelone]

I was talking about Ken Shultz's responses to the article, not the article itself, Einstein.

Energy and velocity but no mass.

[Ken Shultz]

"No shit, Ken. You act like this was some sort of slander."

I act like this is some sort of slander? Where?

"But God forbid that "children" be allowed to discuss their personal feelings and experiences in school."

Who said children shouldn't be allowed to discuss their personal feelings and experiences in school?

"If you have kids, I feel sorry for them."

Go jump in a lake.

[FreeAnnMovement]

Want to know more on this topic?

Check out the website for the Free Ann Movement:
http://freeann.4t.com