Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unhappy with what he called "hurtful and untrue" comments about the school principal posted by a 10th-grade student in the yearbook, teacher Ken Piercy picked up the scissors and cut out the boy's picture and comments from every one of the 150 copies before they were sent out.
Quote:
Brandon Armstrong's picture will be reinstated, but he has agreed to make a "new comment" with the help of his mother, The Vancouver Sun reported.
Quote:
So Piercy, charged with overseeing the yearbook's production, said he could not allow the comments to be published.
Quote:
"It's bordering on scary," she said in an interview with the Sun. "People have gone way off the deep end."
Quote:
"What has been really difficult for me personally and the district is the level of public anger directed at Lori Carpenter," she was quoted by the Sun as saying. "That's really difficult for us to swallow."
Quote:
She said copies of e-mails received by Carpenter included vicious and personal attacks.
This is a prime example of how twisted things have become.
Who ends up being the bigger person here? A tenth grader.
What baffles me is the reaction over a comment, as misconstrued as it may have been, by adult school staff; then their reaction over the public reaction.
Talk about going off the deep end... .
Should the school respond in such an hysterical way, then be surprised the community is "ugly" about it?
Why didn't a member of the adult staff edit the comments before printing? That's what I don't understand. The kids can just write anything? What if they write something truly offensive and profane? Someone "in charge" really should see the proofs first.
Cutting the picture out seems crazy, but he could've been asked to make the "new comment" (which is actually fine, as they could've explained to the kid it wasn't the principal's decision, etc, etc) earlier.
The comment should never have been published, as it wasn't true. Since when does crying "free speech"
allow for publishing personal attacks in a school yearbook?
The person most at fault here is the yearbook advisor though. Something along these lines seems to happen every year. I would think by now pages would get a lot more scrutiny before they are sent out to be printed.
The school could have blacked out the comment with a permanent marker, like other schools have done in the past. But, what the kid wrote wasn't true, according to the article, so I don't see why it should be permitted to remain unchallenged.
Freedom of speech (ignoring the fact that this was not even the US) is not the same thing as freedom to put whatever you like in print.
If they had let it stand would it have not been equally ridiculous if the principal had then sued the child and his parents for liable, she would have absolutely had a case?
A school yearbook is no more obligated to post everyone's opinion than a newspaper is obligated to publish every letter it receives.
So yes, the response to cut out the kids picture was wayyyy overboard but they had every right to get rid of his quote in any way which they wanted to.
Along with Freedom of Speech goes the responsibility of accepting the consequences of your actions. You are MORE than free to yell 'BOMB" at the airport but you are also going to end up in jail if you do.
Why didn't a member of the adult staff edit the comments before printing? That's what I don't understand. The kids can just write anything? What if they write something truly offensive and profane? Someone "in charge" really should see the proofs first.
Cutting the picture out seems crazy, but he could've been asked to make the "new comment" (which is actually fine, as they could've explained to the kid it wasn't the principal's decision, etc, etc) earlier.
When it comes to student-produced publications (yearbook, student newspaper, morning announcements etc) there's usually a lot of tension between what constitutes allowing expression and preventing people from going overboard. Obviously the school administration has the final say no matter what, but I don't think it too smart for the teacher to pick a fight with a punk kid.
If the target of the attack was not the principal but another student instead what would the universal reaction be? Would not the word bully be thrown about and wouldn't 95% of us call for the kid to be disciplined? If the administration isn't safe why should anyone think a student would be? Is our hate for school staff so great that we have a lower standard for how they can be treated? If the administration is fair game what about teachers? How about other kids parents?
The comment should never have been published, as it wasn't true. Since when does crying "free speech"
allow for publishing personal attacks in a school yearbook?
The person most at fault here is the yearbook advisor though. Something along these lines seems to happen every year. I would think by now pages would get a lot more scrutiny before they are sent out to be printed.
The school could have blacked out the comment with a permanent marker, like other schools have done in the past. But, what the kid wrote wasn't true, according to the article, so I don't see why it should be permitted to remain unchallenged.
These are comments made by high school students, not the United Nations. Why would amin. even care what those kids wrote? The kid was a sophomore and learning how to stretch his political wings. So he was mis-informed, so what? He wrote a comment that he believed to be true.
I applaud him for standing up and voicing what he viewed as a mis-use of public funds. An injustice. Good for him. So he was wrong. Someone could have informed him of the error and leave it at that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Freedom of speech (ignoring the fact that this was not even the US) is not the same thing as freedom to put whatever you like in print.
If they had let it stand would it have not been equally ridiculous if the principal had then sued the child and his parents for liable, she would have absolutely had a case?
A school yearbook is no more obligated to post everyone's opinion than a newspaper is obligated to publish every letter it receives.
So yes, the response to cut out the kids picture was wayyyy overboard but they had every right to get rid of his quote in any way which they wanted to.
My point of posting this was the school over-reacting by cutting out the boy's picture and comment, then turning around and accusing the people in the community of over-reacting.
Why would the principal want to sue a 10th grader for making a statement? It didn't damage her in any way. That would be ridiculous.
People have become so thin skinned that it's pitiful. They brought more attention to the fence vs. textbooks opinion than if they had left the comment alone and handed out the books. If it wasn't true, the adults who happened to see the comment would have attributed it to youthful opinon and forgotten about it in quick order.
1. Were I the kid's mother, we would be having a long discussion about fact-checking before you make assertions of that sort in print. And he would be apologizing to the principal, in print, for not doing so. Especially if he's a budding journalist or budding politician, it'd be a good educational experience for him concerning the power of the printed word, and the difficulties inherent in retraction.
2. The yearbook advisor was remiss in not picking that up before it ever went to print.
3. Cutting up the yearbooks is just silly. If Mr. Piercy absolutely had to do a quick fix, just cover it with a black Sharpie. Wonder what was on the other side of that page? If it had been my kid's picture, I'd've been pretty ticked to find a big hole in it.
Why would the principal want to sue a 10th grader for making a statement? It didn't damage her in any way. That would be ridiculous.
People have become so thin skinned that it's pitiful. They brought more attention to the fence vs. textbooks opinion than if they had left the comment alone and handed out the books. If it wasn't true, the adults who happened to see the comment would have attributed it to youthful opinon and forgotten about it in quick order.
The principal did not make the fence decision. It's unclear from the article if she instructed Piercy to cut up the books or if he chose to do that. Either way, she's getting angry and "scary" (which I would assume means threatening) emails from people who clearly know where she works. I'd call that damaging. Certainly blaming her (without bothering to get his facts straight) to an audience of several hundred or more people damages her reputation in the community, because-- rumor being what it is-- it's unlikely anyone else will check facts, either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
