I know some professional journalists who do not register with a political party, thus avoiding an obvious label. I know some professional journalists who do not vote, which seems extreme. I know some professional journalists who wouldn't dream of EVER marching or joining in any particular cause for fear that their objectivity will be compromised.
I also know professionals who join a political party, vote, and participate in community causes. Reasonable people can disagree.
Since I do not believe there can be any sort of rigid "objectivity," I personally think those outward displays are simply for display. But at least they grow from a sense of belonging to the journalism "guild," and supporting some professional standards.
Advisers wear a variety of "hats" of course, but "professional journalist" is not one of them (well, I suppose some advisers are moonlighting as journalists...).
Advisers are, in some sort of descending order:
Teachers/advisers can march, protest, speak out. What good is the First Amendment if people cannot do these things? What happens to an education devoid of passion, or emotions, or sympathy?
I also think it is fine that students, parents, etc., are aware that an adviser/teacher/administrator has marched, voted, read widely, traveled, and generally experienced life (it seems a bit creepy for teachers to pretend teachers have no preferences, no particular morals, no point of view -- though I would also be in favor of not making a show of political views). I refer you to Matthew, and Jesus reminding the Pharisees of the difference between their public displays and true belief.
I am generally in favor of school policies that prohibit teachers from displaying materials from ONE political party in their classroom or that prohibit political harangues. The power differentials are too great between teacher and student for those things to be acceptable.
The murky area lies in how much the adviser influences the final coverage in the student media. As I say: "If an adviser really wants to write or photograph or design, go do that. But you can't take advantage of your power to practice journalism in the STUDENT press."
I resist the "journalism ghetto," and reject the idea that advisers should surrender certain rights, and that media education must be divorced from the rest of the curriculum. It does a disservice to our students for us to pretend to have no views or insights into politics or the law or the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. It is also a disservice to take advantage of our special relationship with young people to "do their thinking for them."
Advisers (teachers) can find a balance between being full members of society and demagoguery. They do that every day, or they leave the profession.
I know advisers who do not allow editors to also be student government leaders. It sounds so noble until I think of the opportunities lost, and of how often editors really ARE leaders in the school. Are we not capable of helping students see varying roles, varying situations? Young people CAN get things mixed up, but rules banning journalism and government leadership IN SCHOOL mistakenly mix the professional world with the academic/social world.
Since I do not believe there can be any sort of rigid "objectivity," I personally think those outward displays are simply for display. But at least they grow from a sense of belonging to the journalism "guild," and supporting some professional standards.
Advisers wear a variety of "hats" of course, but "professional journalist" is not one of them (well, I suppose some advisers are moonlighting as journalists...).
Advisers are, in some sort of descending order:
- Human beings.
- Members of a family.
- Citizens, and members of a larger community.
- Educators.
- Advisers.
Teachers/advisers can march, protest, speak out. What good is the First Amendment if people cannot do these things? What happens to an education devoid of passion, or emotions, or sympathy?
I also think it is fine that students, parents, etc., are aware that an adviser/teacher/administrator has marched, voted, read widely, traveled, and generally experienced life (it seems a bit creepy for teachers to pretend teachers have no preferences, no particular morals, no point of view -- though I would also be in favor of not making a show of political views). I refer you to Matthew, and Jesus reminding the Pharisees of the difference between their public displays and true belief.
I am generally in favor of school policies that prohibit teachers from displaying materials from ONE political party in their classroom or that prohibit political harangues. The power differentials are too great between teacher and student for those things to be acceptable.
The murky area lies in how much the adviser influences the final coverage in the student media. As I say: "If an adviser really wants to write or photograph or design, go do that. But you can't take advantage of your power to practice journalism in the STUDENT press."
I resist the "journalism ghetto," and reject the idea that advisers should surrender certain rights, and that media education must be divorced from the rest of the curriculum. It does a disservice to our students for us to pretend to have no views or insights into politics or the law or the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. It is also a disservice to take advantage of our special relationship with young people to "do their thinking for them."
Advisers (teachers) can find a balance between being full members of society and demagoguery. They do that every day, or they leave the profession.
I know advisers who do not allow editors to also be student government leaders. It sounds so noble until I think of the opportunities lost, and of how often editors really ARE leaders in the school. Are we not capable of helping students see varying roles, varying situations? Young people CAN get things mixed up, but rules banning journalism and government leadership IN SCHOOL mistakenly mix the professional world with the academic/social world.
No comments:
Post a Comment