Resolution One 2013
AEJMC Resolution: 25th Anniversary of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
April 2, 2013
Contact:
Dr. Kyu Ho Youm, AEJMC President
(541) 346-2178
The Board of Directors of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) recently passed a resolution regarding the 25th Anniversary of the Supreme Court significantly reducing the level of First Amendment protection afforded to students’ journalistic speech in the case of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.
In the ruling, the Court’s 5-3 majority concluded that schools could lawfully censor student expressions in non-public forum media for any “legitimate pedagogical purpose,” and that among the recognized lawful purposes was the elimination of speech tending to “associate the school with any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy”.
AEJMC President Kyu Ho Youm of the University of Oregon explains, “Being keenly aware of this year as the 25th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the AEJMC Board of Directors expresses its increasing concern about the negative impact of the case on freedom of the student press. This is all the more so, when the case has been expanded far enough to apply to the college press over the past 16 years. As the leading national organization of postsecondary journalism and mass communication educators, AEJMC wishes to express its strong stand on the unwarranted abuse of Hazelwood as an easy tool of censorship against student journalists on all levels, including that of colleges and universities”.
Resolution:
In recognition of society’s increased reliance on student news-gatherers to fulfill basic community information needs, and the importance of unfiltered information about the performance of educational institutions,
In recognition of the well-documented misapplication of Hazelwood censorship authority to impede the teaching of professional journalistic values and practices, which include the willingness to question the performance of governance institutions,
In recognition that the primary concern of the Supreme Court in Hazelwood was to permit schools to restrict editorial content “unsuitable for immature audiences”, a concern inapplicable at the postsecondary level.
In recognition of the combined 150 years’ experience of states with statutory student free-press guarantees, demonstrating that the Hazelwood level of administrative control is unnecessary for the advancement of legitimate educational objectives,
Be it resolved that:
The Board of Directors of AEJMC declares that no legitimate pedagogical purpose is served by the censorship of student journalism even if it reflects unflatteringly on school policies and programs, candidly discusses sensitive social and political issues, or voices opinions challenging to majority views on matters of public concern. The censorship of such speech is detrimental to effective learning and teaching, and it cannot be justified by reference to “pedagogical concerns.”
Be it further resolved that:
The AEJMC Board of Directors declares that the Hazelwood level of control over student journalistic and editorial expression is incompatible with the effective teaching of journalistic skills, values and practices at the collegiate level, and that institutions of postsecondary education should forswear reliance on Hazelwood as a legitimate source of authority for the governance of student and educator expression.
AEJMC President Releases a Statement on Leak Prosecutions
March 25, 2013 | The Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) is committed to freedom of speech and the press in the United States and abroad. AEJMC believes that this commitment must include a free exchange of information and ideas, even some information that the U.S. government considers or wishes to be “secret.” The Pentagon Papers, Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair and the existence of clandestine CIA prisons are examples in which secret government information was leaked to and publicized by the news media. In these and in many other cases, the dissemination of secret information served a greater good to American society by informing the public and by allowing for a needed debate on the ethics of secret government policies and covert actions. We believe that a democracy shrouded in secrecy encourages corruption, and we agree, as Justice Louis D. Brandeis of the U.S. Supreme Court said, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
AEJMC, therefore, calls attention to the current administration’s zeal in prosecuting those in government who leak secret information. Only three times in its first 92 years was the Espionage Act of 1917 used to prosecute government officials for leaking secret information to the press. However, the current administration has already brought six charges under this Act. The accused in all of these cases appear to represent whistleblowers, not those engaged in attempted espionage for foreign governments that “aid the enemy.”
We caution that the prosecution of U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, who released a trove of secret data to the WikiLeaks website, appears to be excessively punitive, with a chilling effect on a democracy’s requisite freedom of speech and the press. The release of this information advanced and clarified public debate on the morality of U.S. policy. Some observers even suggest that the honest (albeit secret) diplomatic assessments of Middle Eastern regimes helped spark the Arab Spring. Pfc. Bradley Manning has already admitted in military court that he did break the law through his actions. But to accuse him of “aiding the enemy” is egregious, given his credible stated intentions and the global breadth of the dissemination.
The government’s current approach toward leak prosecutions sends a message to the rest of the world that the United States’ actions are not fully aligned with its stated “exceptional” commitment to freedom of speech and the press as a human right.
Therefore, in recognition of the historical benefits of leaked information to our nation and to the principles and values of democracy, in particular the freedom of speech and the press, AEJMC calls on the U.S. government to make prosecutions as rare as possible, to consider the credible intent of the accused in these prosecutions, and to seek punishment that is proportionate and commensurate, not only with credible intent, but also with resulting harm and benefit to our democracy, its principles and values. Furthermore, we ask that prosecutors consider reviewing existing press leak cases in light of the public good and the First Amendment. AEJMC believes that this will ensure an environment in which the public will continue to be served through the occasional leaking of secret information by those whose credible intent was the public good.
2013 Abstracts
AEJMC 2013 Conference Paper Abstracts
Washington, DC • August 8 to 11
The following AEJMC groups conducted research competitions for the 2013 conference. The accepted paper abstracts are listed within each section.
Divisions:
- Advertising
- Communicating Science, Health, Environment, and Risk (ComSHER)
- Communication Technology (CTEC)
- Communication Theory and Methodology
- Cultural and Critical Studies
- Electronic News (formerly Radio Television Journalism)
- History
- International Communication
- Law and Policy
- Magazine
- Mass Communication and Society
- Media Ethics
- Media Management and Economics
- Minorities and Communication (MAC)
- Newspaper and Online News
- Public Relations
- Scholastic Journalism
- Visual Communication (VisCom)
Interest Groups:
- Civic and Citizen Journalism
- Community Journalism
- Entertainment Studies
- Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender
- Graduate Student (formerly Graduate Education)
- Internships and Careers
- Political Communication
- Religion and Media
- Small Programs (SPIG)
- Sports Communication (SPORTS)
Commissions:
Standing Committees:
Response from AEJMC President, Carol J. Pardun
Jun. 11, 2010 | On Monday, June 7th, the President’s Advisory Council (PAC) and I sent a statement to the AEJMC membership. Within hours, the blogosphere was alive with comments concerning our statement. Many of the responses were against the statement. While we certainly expected criticism, we were stymied by the volume, tone, and accusations. As members of AEJMC, the PAC and I are staunch advocates for journalism and mass communication and do not represent any political entity or side. It was not our intention to categorize Obama’s presidency as a failure or to offend anyone by insensitivity in the statement. In fact, it grieves me to think that we may have given that impression to any AEJMC member, let alone an entire division or commission.
The PAC and I present the following as background on how we arrived at the statement released on June 7 along with some analysis about ways we think the process can be improved:
At the 2009 conference in Boston, the AEJMC membership approved the formation of a President’s Advisory Council. The PAC grew out of an initiative in AEJMC’s Strategic Plan, approved by the membership during the 2008 meeting in Chicago, to strengthen the organization’s identity, image and influence.
As explained at the Boston meeting, the PAC assists the AEJMC president “to weigh in on important issues that are central to the association’s mission.” The three-member subcommittee of the Standing Committee of Professional Freedom and Responsibility, elected by the AEJMC membership, is responsible for taking ideas from members to the president and advising the president on how to proceed. Committee membership rotates each year.
All statements by the PAC are released to the membership and posted on the AEJMC website. The PAC issued its first statement in October, and has since released three other statements. All statements have addressed issues central to AEJMC’s mission – which includes “supporting freedom of communication consonant with the ideal expressed in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”
The PAC’s most recent statement – issued June 7, 2010, and addressing issues similar to those in earlier statements – has hit a nerve with many AEJMC members. We appreciate the “uninhibited, robust and wide-open” debate this statement has prompted about the issue we addressed (journalists’ access to the president in open, full press conferences) and about the statement itself.
The fact that members might have substantive differences with any statement issued by AEJMC is not surprising; no single statement issued by an organization as large and diverse as ours will meet with approval from all members.
We do want to address concerns by some members about the motives and process behind our most recent statement (“Obama’s Promised…”). Concerns seem to center on three major themes:
- The appropriateness of the statement in light of other issues. Throughout this first year for the PAC, a number of issues have been proposed for statements. The PAC generally discusses these issues in terms of their potential scope, impact and timeliness. Some issues, for instance, do not merit statements because they may be so local in focus as to lack relevance to a wider context. Others may have potential for wide impact but do not result in statements because they are resolved quickly (such as a legislative vote or administrative decision involving a public institution). Another consideration is the potential for action: Can a positive outcome result from a statement? (For instance, is a decision pending? Or, might public officials consider changing their communication practices?) This last point might be a reason the PAC chooses not to issue a statement about the political bias of a cable news network.
The PAC chose to address the issue involving the current White House administration and its relationship with journalists because, in the PAC’s estimation, the issue met the above-mentioned criteria. The PAC invites discussion and suggestions about how to more finely tune the general criteria it uses to judge topics for statements in light of the organization’s mission statement.
- The accuracy of the statement. Several AEJMC members have publicly disputed the statement’s assertion that the current White House administration needs to be more accessible to the press. This assertion – and any arguments to the contrary — depend on how “accessible” is defined. In their arguments that the statement’s assertions were wrong, members have pointed to the work of scholar Martha Joynt Kumar (Towson University) and to news articles parsing the availability of the current president in relationship to previous administrations.
The PAC understood many of the same sources as supporting the statement’s concern: for the lack of open-ended, full-length press conferences by the president that allow unfettered questions on a variety of issues, and the lack of general, day-to-day access by reporters to the president. The numbers and anecdotal evidence support this assertion.
We acknowledge that our statement could have – and should have been – clearer about its definition of openness, and we’re grateful for the constructive feedback from AEJMC members in this regard. Although the PAC reads and consults with AEJMC members and non-members before issuing any statement, the process to ensure that releases are clear about their intent can and should be improved – and we welcome suggestions. We know the headline has a strong influence on how any statement is read and we now realize that we should insist our reviewers consider the headline to the statement as carefully as they do the statement. From now on, we will make sure that this process occurs in tandem.
- The sensitivity of the statement. The PAC is open – and, indeed, eager – to understand more about how to avoid wording and/or assertions insensitive to the diverse populations (by gender, race, ability, sexuality and age, for instance) in any of the statements it has issued. Although the PAC has made it a practice of outside consultation before issuing any statement, it has been suggested – and we concur – that it would be wise to put a system into place that ensures consultation considering the diversity of AEJMC’s constituents. There are a number of ways to ensure such consultation.
We welcome input of AEJMC members – either individually or through the organization’s many divisions and interest groups – about the PAC’s work. To those who have provided us with constructive feedback: Thank you. We look forward – with your input – to improving the process as AEJMC implements its strategic plan.
Most of all, thank you for your concern about issues facing us and our profession as we continue to work toward upholding and safeguarding the tenets of the First Amendment.
AEJMC Supports Free Flow of Information Act
Oct. 7, 2009 | The Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) joins the dozens of news organizations supporting the Free Flow of Information Act (FFIA), a federal shield law that passed the House and is now under debate in the Senate. A key component of the bill is how a journalist will be defined. The current definition, attached to the bill as an amendment, is too restrictive.
The definition of those who gather and disseminate news and information of public interest should not be predicated on an individual’s employment, but instead on an individual’s journalistic practice.
Freelance journalists (who disseminate their work in a variety of ways, including through reputable blogs) and student journalists need the protections extended through the FFIA.
The AEJMC encourages lawmakers to expand the definition of a journalist to be more inclusive so that this important law will be strengthened.
Contacts: Carol Pardun, AEJMC President (803) 777-3244, ; Charles N. Davis, AEJMC Law & Policy Division Chair, (573) 882-5736 .
This statement was issued by the 2009-10 President of AEJMC, Carol Pardun, University of South Carolina, and through the President’s Advisory Council (Marie Hardin, Pennsylvania State University; Paul Lester, California State University-Fullerton; Julianne Newton, University of Oregon).
Prosecutors Investigate Students; AEJMC Urges Subpoena Quash
Nov. 3, 2009 | The Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) has issued the following statement in support of David Protess, Professor and Director of The Medill Innocence Project, associated journalism students, and the protection of journalists to report on government:
According to a New York Times story by Monica Davey, prosecutors in Illinois have subpoenaed the “grades, grading criteria, class syllabus, expense reports and e-mail messages” of students involved with Northwestern University’s Medill Innocence Project who investigated whether a man convicted of murder three decades ago had been wrongfully convicted. Prosecutors reportedly want to discover whether there were links between new information learned by the students and their grades. A hearing is set this month at the Cook County (Illinois) Circuit Court regarding this issue.
AEJMC’s position is that this highly unusual request is inappropriate for three reasons:
- The Medill journalism students should be protected under the Illinois state shield law;
- If the court grants the prosecutors’ request, journalism students involved with similar projects would think twice about criticizing governmental actions if personal information, such as grades and e-mails, could become public; and
- Journalists should not be treated as instruments of the State.
AEJMC strongly urges the judge responsible for this case to quash the subpoena and direct prosecutors to investigate the evidence uncovered by the journalism students in a timely and unbiased way.
Contacts: Carol Pardun, AEJMC President (803) 777-3244, ; Bill Cassidy, AEJMC Newspaper Division Chair, (815) 753-7005, .
This statement was issued by the 2009-10 President of AEJMC, Carol Pardun, University of South Carolina, and through the President’s Advisory Council (Marie Hardin, Pennsylvania State University; Paul Lester, California State University-Fullerton; Julianne Newton, University of Oregon).
Related links
AEJMC Supports Net Neutrality
Jan. 26, 2010 | The Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) urges the Federal Communications Commission to adopt rules preserving open and nondiscriminatory access to the internet.
The debate about network neutrality is complex and contentious, but we wish to address a specific myth advanced by network neutrality opponents: that this regulation would stifle innovation and create disincentives for investment in next-generation broadband networks.
The AEJMC rejects this claim.
The most important internet innovations have not come from network providers, but from creative outsiders who built their inventions on top of a neutral network. Requiring network neutrality is vital to preserve competition and investment in internet content, services, and applications.
The FCC should codify the internet openness principles that already guide the agency, and Congress and the courts should support this move. The rules would protect both consumers and innovators of content, services, and applications from unfair discrimination by internet service providers. Perhaps most importantly, these rules would help preserve and develop the internet as a key tool for communication that serves our democracy.
Contacts: Carol Pardun, AEJMC President (803) 777-3244, ; Bill Herman, AEJMC Member and Media Law Scholar, (215) 715.3507 (mobile),
This statement was issued by the 2009-10 President of AEJMC, Carol Pardun, University of South Carolina, and through the President’s Advisory Council (Marie Hardin, Pennsylvania State University; Paul Lester, California State University-Fullerton; Julianne Newton, University of Oregon).
Related links
AEJMC: Obama’s Promised “Change” Lacks Transparency
Jun. 7, 2010 | In late May, President Barack Obama took the podium in front of the White House press corps in his first full, open-ended news conference in 10 months, a gap that exceeds the record set by his predecessor.
Obama’s lack of presidential press conferences and his general lack of transparency and accessibility to journalists during his administration are in sharp contrast to the platform on which he ran for president in 2008. During that campaign, Obama pledged a new era of openness.
Even the most logical of venues for answering questions from the press seem to be off-limits. In mid-May after he signed the Daniel Pearl Freedom of Press Act-a new law requiring the State Department to identify governments that restrict press freedoms-he refused to answer questions from reporters. “I’m not doing a press conference today,” he announced, according to a Reuters news story. And when he does allow reporters’ questions, attempts are made to control the proceeding. Last year the Wall Street Journal criticized the administration’s pre-screening of reporters who would be allowed to ask questions of the president.
The AEJMC is alarmed by restrictions to presidential coverage that at best curtail and at worst prevent U.S. citizens from understanding the critical issues in which this administration is involved. We urge President Obama and members of his administration to fulfill the commitment “to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government” described in his memo posted on http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/transparencyandopengovernment/. Supporting a free, open and informed press with regular access to the president is the best way to support transparent governance in the best interest of a free and informed citizenry.
Contacts: Carol Pardun, AEJMC President (803) 777-3244, ; Paul Lester, AEJMC President’s Advisory Council (562) 310-3041, .
This statement was issued by the 2009-10 President of AEJMC, Carol Pardun, University of South Carolina, and through the President’s Advisory Council (Marie Hardin, Pennsylvania State University; Paul Lester, California State University-Fullerton; Julianne Newton, University of Oregon).
AEJMC Supports Federal Funding of Public Media
Mar. 22, 2011 | The Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) encourages the Senate to reject a provision in a House-passed budget bill that would devastate public media and, instead, to protect funding for broadcasting in the public interest.
Last month, House lawmakers voted to eliminate funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes federal funds that support operations at 1,300 local public broadcasting stations. While federal funding is just a portion of station budgets (almost 14 percent, on average), it is critical to the ability of those stations to operate and to raise additional funding. Research indicates that local stations hardest hit by these cuts would be those in rural areas, where federal dollars are almost half of some stations’ operating budgets and where there are fewer sources of news for residents.
Objections to federal funding of public media have, in part, been based on the mistaken belief that the government has no obligation to fund the “Fourth Estate.”
The Carnegie Commission, formed in 1965 to examine the role of broadcasting in U.S. democracy, released its report two years later calling for a public broadcasting system that would be available “to all the people of the United States: a system that in its totality will become a new and fundamental institution in American culture” for the “full needs of the American public” could be served.
The AEJMC believes that the need for such a publicly funded system has not diminished in the decades since the Commission’s report. Indeed, as the issues facing Americans become increasingly complex, the need for public broadcasting designed to “help us see America whole, in all its diversity” is greater than ever.
As research also points out, commercial media enterprises have – for most of this country’s history – received federal assistance in the form of discounted postal subsidies and tax breaks, for instance. Yet, Americans trust public media more for relevant, complete news. A recent Roper Poll listed PBS as the nation’s most-trusted institution. In the 2010 poll, 45 percent of respondents said they trust PBS more than any other nationally known organization.
PBS ranked at the top in public trust among every age group, ethnicity, income and education level measured. Second in trust are “courts of law,” which are trusted a great deal by 26 percent.. PBS ranks highest in importance among 58 percent of respondents when compared to commercial broadcasting (43 percent respondents) and cable television (40 percent). A recent report by researchers at the USC Center on Communication Leadership and Policy suggests that increased funding for public broadcasting might be advisable.
The AEJMC also urges lawmakers, journalists and the public to engage in discussion that will move the debate beyond simply whether public broadcasting should or should not be federally funded. As scholars and activists point out, the way public broadcasting is funded – through a process that involves partisan decision-making every budget cycle – needs to be scrutinized so public media can better meets its obligations to democracy.
Information and Resources:
“Public Policy & Funding the News.” Produced by the USC Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership & Policy. See fundingthenews.usc.edu.
“Free Press Denounces House Vote to Zero Out Public Media Funding,” Feb. 19, 2011. See www.freepress.net for release.
“Public Media and Political Independence: Lessons for the Future of Journalism from Around the World,” by Rodney Benson and Matthew Powers, New York University Department of Media, Culture and Communication. Available as a download at SavetheNews.org, a Free Press site.
170 Million Americans for Public Broadcasting, a collaborative site of public radio and television stations and supporters.
Presidential Statement of Respect for Evonne H. Whitmore
Aug. 29, 2011 | Whereas Dr. Evonne “Von” Whitmore was an esteemed and beloved colleague providing significant service to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) for well over a decade, including, most recently, chairing its Council of Divisions and in that capacity serving on the Board of Directors, and was always a thoughtful, responsible colleague and role model for service to journalism and advocate of diversity; and
Whereas Von Whitmore had a deep and profound impact on friends, colleagues, and students at Kent State University, where she completed her Ph.D. in 2004 and wrote a dissertation, “An Historical Perspective On The Accrediting Council On Education in Journalism and Mass Communications from 1986-2003: Examination Of The Impact On Curriculum” and where she was a role model and taught courses in broadcast producing, ethics and theory; and
Whereas Von Whitmore was author of many essays and reports about struggles for racial and gender equity, publishing articles in Journalism and Mass Communication Educator and newsletters for various groups within AEJMC; and
Whereas she was an officer for AEJMC’s Commission on the Status of Minorities of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, and also edited its Newsletter “Twelve,” named in honor of the accreditation standard requiring diversity; and
Whereas Von Whitmore served as Teaching Standards Chair for AEJMC’s Minorities and Communication Division, 2002-2003, and also edited the newsletter of the Minority Division of the Broadcast Education Association, 1990-1991;
Whereas she was a highly respected leader in AEJMC’s Commission on the Status of Women, serving as Research Chair, 2004-2005, and Chair, 2006-2007; and
Whereas she admirably served AEJMC’s Internships and Careers Interest Group, serving as chair 2003-2004, Vice Head and Program Chair in 2002-2003, and contributing a regular column to the ICIG newsletter; and
Whereas she was able to ground her broadcast journalism teaching and her articles about broadcast education in her valuable experiences as the general manager of WHOV-FM, at Hampton University, and as a reporter at ABC affiliate WVEC-TV in Hampton Roads, and at CBS affiliates WTKR-TV and WTAR radio; and
Whereas Von Whitmore spent 2008 as a U.S. Fulbright Scholar in Egypt, promoting internationally accepted principles that will increase the credibility of Egyptian journalists;
Therefore be it resolved that we remember and commemorate the advocacy and intellectual work, and the generous service of Prof. Whitmore.
