Sep 21, 2008 - 04:05:19 CDT
This is the political season, so here's a political story with an important lesson.When asked why he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, former President Bill Clinton said: "I think I did something for the worst possible reason - just because I could. I think that's the most, just about the most morally indefensible reason that anybody could have for doing anything. When you do something just because you could ... I've thought about it a lot. And there are lots of more sophisticated explanations, more complicated psychological explanations. But none of them are an excuse ... Only a fool does not look to explain his mistakes."
Say what you will about Clinton. Many love him, many not so much. Many believe he accomplished much and many believe his legacy is cemented in lies ("I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky").
But here are the key words worth analysis from Clinton's later response to the affair "just because I could."
We all are guilty of the same not necessarily of having affairs, but of doing something just because we could. But just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. And just because we have certain powers, controls or abilities doesn't mean they should be exercised or used.
Tribute should be paid when it is due, and if Clinton was/is sincere then he should be applauded for discovering certain truths about power, thoughtful thinking, humility and morality.
I was reminded of this lesson last week when I was told of a censorship issue by a high school principal. It isn't the first time the powerful have used their authority just because they could, but it happens far too often.
It seems this person was attempting to control the content of a student newspaper, using the publication as a "political tool." The censorship decisions had been based on image considerations and not wanting to offend certain segments of society.
The censorship actions, again, had likely being taken just because the person had the power to do so. In such cases I agree with Clinton who said "just because I can" isn't "the most morally indefensible reason that anybody could have for doing anything."
The law/rule/policy cited most often in high school censorship issues is the 1988 Hazlewood decision.
Students usually believe that when principals become overly involved to the point of censorship that it is a violation of First Amendment rights. The Hazlewood decision, however, confirmed that school officials might impose limits on students' speech.
Might, however, doesn't mean will. The might in the Hazelwood decision is tied to limiting speech only in activities that are "an integral part of the school's educational function," and the might decision must have "a substantial and reasonable basis."
The bottom line became this: if a principal had good reason to do so, he/she could place limits on curricular activities, such as a student newspaper.
That decision was appealed, however, and all public high school students do have First Amendment protections; officials do not have a universal censorship right. Student rights, however, unfortunately, are not the same as professional journalists.
The courts further ruled that if a student newspaper, as part of a school's curriculum, is a "public forum," officials can censor only when "necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with school work or discipline."
There are other benefits to respecting press freedoms in high school. First, students have the opportunity to learn to balance responsibility and sensitivity with freedom. They will make mistakes, yes, but that is often another benefit, this time for officials. When officials are involved in pre-publication review, they become, in effect, a party of responsibility for mistakes in areas of libel and/or legal disputes. A hands-off policy for officials provides greater protection.
"Congress shall make no law - abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press -" are First Amendment protections. There is no mention of "- except for the high school media."
We just celebrated Constitution Week and censorship is certainly worthy of note, as did Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart some time back when he wrote: "Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime ..."
Mandated censorship. on any level, is nothing more than an attempt to shield sensitive citizens from anything that is unpleasant, and that generally does more harm than good.
Censorship should never be practiced "just because we can." It deserves much more thought.
(You can reach Editor John Irby at 250-8266 or john.irby@;bismarcktribune.com and go to www.bismarcktribune.com/blog/?w=thepaper&e_id=2671/ to read his blog.)
OBE wrote on Sep 22, 2008 12:12 PM:
nodakboy wrote on Sep 21, 2008 4:44 PM:
It's silly to compare high school newspapers to "the press" of which the Constitution speaks.
A high school administrator is, for better or worse, the publisher of any high school paper; and can, therefore, decide what goes in and what doesn't go in, and fire writers, just as any newspaper publisher does.
Your right to a free press doesn't include forcing a newspaper to publish your column. Likewise, no student has any constitutional right to have their thoughts published, even in their school paper. (Gads, how will the Republic survive not reading what falls out of the brains of high school students?)
Perhaps teaching them they have to earn space in their school paper would be a more useful lesson in life, no?
You want freedom of the press, buy your own damn press.
Till then, get an editor. "
Halatbis wrote on Sep 21, 2008 2:09 PM:
The Bill Clinton and Lewinski debacle was one of the most unfortunate things to happen in the U.S. since Nixon's failure to clean up the Watergate breakin. What Clinton's behavior did is set one party against the other in a near-death struggle, and the U.S. is still paying for that animosity. I don't see it getting better for many years, perhaps until such time the nation faces a real survival crisis, or the people get so sick of it they pick up pitchforks and sickles.
Clinton did it because he could is an excuse, and to me it tells so much about his character and his morals. It is hard to fathom how a person so deficient in character and personal restraint could be elected to such a high office; it is scary what such a person is capable of doing "just because he could".
Interestingly, G.W. Bush is depicted as the cowboy, but he has shown restraint and character in office all the while doing some real humanitarian good for millions of people in this world. "
Amy Walker wrote on Sep 21, 2008 1:06 PM:
One of my favorite historical quotes comes from Pastor Martin Niemller (18921984), a holocaust survivor:
In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didnt speak up because I wasnt a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didnt speak up because I wasnt a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didnt speak up because I wasnt a Jew; And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
Sometimes we need to let our voices be heard just because we can so that when we need to speak up, we not only know how to self-advocate, but we still have the right.
But, we mustnt only speak up because what we say it right. We mustnt only speak up when we have to engage in a battle of rights. Sometimes, we need to speak up just because it is our right.
As Americans we have the right to speak for nothing more than the sake of discussion and practice, to share our perspectives and to hear those of others. It is for the very purpose of discussion that we must speak and allow others to speak their minds as well.
A public forum, like a high school newspaper, gives us a place to exchange the ideas that will shape our thoughts and perspectives. And, as long as those views are established as protected speech by the Constitution, where better than a public school to do just that? How can we expect our children to grow from the ideas of others if we wont allow those thoughts to be shared?
Not only must we speak up just because we can, we must teach our children to do the same. It is our intellectual discourse that allows us to think and act freely as proud Americans. "
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.