By: warda on 12/15/08
As a recent graduate of FHS, I am quite familiar with the Echo, and with Ms. Zwagerman’s principles. Due to this familiarity, I find no surprise in the disagreement at hand and how it has escalated into such unnecessary conflict on because of the Echo. I find no legitimacy in the argument Ms. Zwagerman is placing here. The school district has every right to review the article, as stated in Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier. The Hattica argument is a flimsy one. In Hattica, it was not the administration’s right to prior review that was in question, but rather, their overuse of it. This argument would make sense had the Echo already submitted to prior review. The fact is, since Hazelwood, no case has deemed prior review in school publications unconstitutional. Therefore, this argument is null and void, as the school district is merely trying to exercise its legal rights.
Frankly, it is sickening to see the way in which Ms. Zwagerman and her editors have turned this situation into a hostile one. This can bee seen just in the letters between the two parties posted on this page. Dr. Stepaniak’s letter to the Echo portrayed a tone of openness and kindness. This stands in clear contrast to the hostile list of demands set forth by the Echo in their letter dated Dec. 12. This seems like a desperate attempt on behalf of the Echo. Ms. Zwagerman continues this trend by stating in her letter to Dr. Stepaniak, “They (the Echo editors) fear that administrators will be able to request articles at their whim and that censorship will occur without regard to the law.” Once again, instead of rationality and sense, all I find here is arrogance. The school district has the law on their side, and I sincerely doubt that the administration has enough free time on their hands to “request article on a whim.” In my experience with the Echo, I have heard it referred to more often as “trash” than a well-put together publication. It seems to me that the only articles that are not “ungrammatical, poorly written, and inadequately researched” are those that are meant to lead to conflict.

By: faribosoftball on 12/15/08
As a former editor of the Echo, I completely support the students and their constitutional rights. The Echo has every right and responsibility to print the article, without prior review!

By: watching on 12/15/08
Well said warda and that golfrguy. Well said!

By: thatgolfrguy on 12/15/08
faribosoftball -

I am also a former editor - what constitutional rights do you speak of? I assume freedom of speech - the students are not entitled to that because they are not the publishers of the Echo - the school board, and more importantly, Superintendent Stepaniak, are the publishers.

Your comment shows how much you didn't learn as editor of the Echo.

Also, Kelly Zwagerman sounds completely uneducated and unprofessional in her correspondence with Superintendent Stepaniak. I would expect her resignation after an episode of this magnitude...

By: dude on 12/15/08
The arrogance of the student letter to the superintendent makes me wonder exactly what their "advisor" is telling them, seems that maybe SHE needs to be reviewed. The school district runs the ECHO, Dr. Stepaniak is fully within his rights to shut down the paper, the students refusing to abide by policy, and the veiled threats contained in the letter should result in disciplanry action against not only them but the "faculty advisor" who is giving them this poor example of how an educator should teach. You want to refuse prior review, fine, you were warned that the echo would be shut down, and so it is. No matter what job you do, Dr., lawyer, reporter, you still have to answer to a "boss", Dr. Stepaniak is yours kids, get over it!

By: gofaribs on 12/15/08
thatgolfrguy -- you apparently didn't learn much in your time at The Echo, either, if you don't even care about freedom of speech enough to think a newspaper (even one at a high school) should fight for it.

By: Hello on 12/15/08
If the superintendent was reviewing every edition of The Echo he might have a basis for his argument. Since it is an article that is uncomfortable for the district he wishes to wield his suppressive powers.
I would like to see the issue the students have worked very hard to put together. Perhaps this issue could be printed under a different title with help from the community.

By: dude on 12/15/08
I don't think this is an issue of free speech, but rather this group of kids, with their adult "advisor" feeling put out because Dr. Stepaniak excercised his right as superintendent to prior review of a specific story that is still under investigation by the district. The Echo, being a publication of the school district, discussing ANYTHING pertaining to a personnel matter would leave the district open to litigation from Mrs Prieve. Besides, we're not talking about professional journalists, the Daily News covered the story already, we're talking about high school students participating in essentially a class, they have limits in the classroom, they also need to understand that they have limits, and responsiblilties on class room projects, such as the Echo.

By: watching on 12/15/08
The superintendent should be reviewing every edition, and is by delegating this authority to the ECHO's advisor. It looks like she has failed in her duties and has not obeyed direction from school district's supervisors and administrators. So the superintendent had to step in.

There is no doubt that Dr. Stepaniak has been discussing this with the school district's attorneys and is following their legal advise.

Dr. Stepaniak asked to review the article before it was published, probably not only for his review, but also for the district's attorneys to look at for legal reasons.

The student editors, without authority to do so, decided to not let Dr. Stepaniak review the article and wanted to sidestep the proper channels by going to the district's attorneys - the same attorneys that provide legal advise to Dr. Stepaniak.

Had they allowed Stepaniak to review the article first then asked for it to reviewed by the district's attorneys it may be a different story. Instead the student editors, led by an insubordinate advisor, took this improper step.

The superintendent sets policy and works in the best interest of the school district and ultimately the taxpayer to minimize liability. That is what he is doing here.

Like it or not, he is ultimately the publisher of this 'newspaper' and is taking the responsibility he is entitled to. If the editor of the DN tried this stunt with the publisher he probably wouldn't be there to do it again.

Along with learning journalism and the first amendment (which does not give anyone absolute freedom of speech) the student editors and others should learn the chain of command and what the consequences are for not following it. Given that, the advisor is dong an injustice to the students and should be subject to disciplinary action and removed from the position.

Dr. Stepaniak, by following legal advise, is looking out for the best interest of the school district and the taxpayer. This action has already cost us taxpayers money and will continue to do so if it continues.

There are lessons to be learned in this for the students. The first amendment does not give them the absolute right to say what ever they want to. To avoid liability they need to follow the advise of supervisors and their legal advisors. They also need to know that they are accountable to their supervisors. If not, life is going to be rather hard for them.

By: adamkline on 12/15/08
I was a co-editor-in-chief of The Echo two years ago. There seems to be a lot of debate about the character of both Kelly Zwagerman and Superintendent Stepaniak. We are missing the issue at hand!

Comments that say things like 'we can't let students running amok' absolutely grind my gears. Students who dedicate themselves to working on The Echo put in an enormous time committment and are preached the laws and ethics of responsible journalism. The fact of the matter is that these students have the right to publish this article without submitting it for review. For those of you who don't know very much about the history of student journalism, the prevalence of people suing student newspapers for libelous content is miniscule in comparison to student journalists who sue school districts for unreasonable censorship. This is not China, as Americans we have the right to free press!

Open your minds, those of you who assume students are out to 'get' the school district and get them sued have been watching too much Children of the Corn.

By: adamkline on 12/15/08
One more thing, comments such as '[students] should learn the chain of command and what the consequences are for not following it' are a prime example of how unreasonably terrified some people are of the upcoming generation who will soon run this country. In a time in which adolescents are accused of being lazy, quotes such as this one encourage students to sit back and learn they have no power or voice in society. By taking away self- accountability and responsibility, which is exactly what is happening in this case, you encourage learned helplessness to our youths.

Wake up!

By: watching on 12/15/08
yeah right

By: adamkline on 12/15/08
It's that dismissive attitude that is the bane of our society.

By: watching on 12/15/08
whatever

By: NP23 on 12/15/08
I could be off base here,but what would happen if the echo wrote about a student,and there was no truth to it.Who is responsible then? The school,echo or Kelly Zwagerman.

By: adamkline on 12/15/08
All are ultimately responsible...there would be repercussions for all, but financially the school district would be. That is why students are taught and grilled so hard by the journalism instructor on legal issues such as libelous print. Nothing just gets thrown into The Echo, it faces reviews and edits from Zwagerman, page editors, and editors-in-chief.

By: watching on 12/15/08
NP23 ... regardless of who would be responsible, it would fall on the school district because the lawyers know they have deep pockets and the means to pay.

Zwagerman is an employee, who is under the supervision of the principal and the superintendent. Taking a stand on an issue on your own is one thing. Not following directions of superiors and going against the opinion of the district's lawyers is irresponsible as well as not wise.

By: adamkline on 12/15/08
Yes, because as we all know, nothing good has ever come from standing up for what you believe in. Anyone who has ever made a deep impact on society has done so with the complete and unconditional servitude to their superiors. Good thing our founding fathers chose not to disobey their British superiors.(This is a heavily sarcastic laden comment)

P.s. I am not trying to suggest that this stand is of the same magnitude as the foundation of our country.

By: bruce3119 on 12/15/08
I am NOT a former editor of the Echo, but very active in scholastic journalism in my career.

From the SPLA: School officials will be allowed to censor these kind of publications when they can show that their censorship is "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical [educational] concerns." When the censorship has "no valid educational purpose," it will still be prohibited.

School officials were not given limitless authority under Hazelwood. They still have the burden of justifying their censorship under this " valid educational purpose" standard.

By: watching on 12/15/08
good. because it is no where near the same magnitude. This is not the 1700's and we are not under British rule. There are years of laws and court decisions in place, not only for the protection of the school district and the students, but also for the protection of Ms. Prieve's rights.

I do not have a problem with anyone taking a stand if it is on her own dime and the responsiblty is theirs.

She is, however, a paid employee who disregarded the direction of her supervisors, as well as not following the legal advise provided by her employer.

Putting her ideals in the line, at the expense of others, is foolhardy, is selfish and is not fair to others. As a taxpayer who would get stuck with higher taxes because of her not following directions, it is not only my opinion, it is also it my issue.

By: jlane on 12/15/08
I appreciate Dr. Stepaniak taking a stand in favor of the school district, taxpayers, Mrs. Prieve's relative privacy, and especially all the rest of the students of our schools who aren't acting in this same disrespectful manner. Read the letter to Dr. Stepaniak from the students, nothing but vague threats of legal action. Since when do we threaten legal action when our teachers, principles, or administrators make decisions that we disagree with? These kids and their "advisor" should be subject to disciplinary review, not just for failing to follow the directives of the school district administration, but for embarassing our school district, check tomorrows star tribune. The Mrs Prieve story is out, if there is anything more to say that hasn't already, it should be kept confidential and part of the school districts investigation, if not it should be laid to rest. The only thing i think these kids and teacher are taking a "stand" for is to have a temper tantrum in print because they didn't get their way.

By: adamkline on 12/15/08
Why must you think under the assumption that the school newspaper was going to be sued? You are thinking from the point-of-view of the exception, not commonplace. You are assuming that the students were going to be irresponsible with the article. This is more of a case of protecting publicity by the superintendent and less about what is legal and illegal.

By: adamkline on 12/15/08
Move to China if you want your government and superiors making every decision for you. These students are opting to take the route of self-accountability and should be applauded for doing so. We should admire their cause not scoff at it.

By: jlane on 12/15/08
It is the duty of the superintendent to protect the "publicity" of the school district, that is one of the duties we charge him with.

By: polarscribe on 12/15/08
jlane, the school district is not only going to be embarrassed at the national bad publicity for censoring its students, it's also likely to face a federal free speech lawsuit from First Amendment groups such as the ACLU, Student Press Law Center and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

So, if you were concerned about the "embarassment," you should probably be opposing the superintendent's move - because by censoring the student paper, he's going to make the Faribault school district into national free speech news and these brave students into causes celebrés for freedom of expression. Congratulations, college journalists - and soon, the rest of the nation - now know that Faribault doesn't believe in the First Amendment.

http://collegerag.net/2008/12/15/enterprising-hs-reporters-paper-shut-down/

By: adamkline on 12/15/08
So censoring the students rights to print a fact-based article in their paper is justified by an act of politics? Is this what we should be trying to teach students?

By: gofaribs on 12/15/08
I commend Christen Hildebrandt, Ben Jackson and the others involved for fighting this. I find it interesting that some of the same voices who were claiming during election season that liberals were going to take free speech away are now trying to... take free speech away -- watching, I'm looking at you.

Here's a comment from watching on an Oct. 24 letter to the editor: "...I feel that squelching the media, whether they are liberal or conservative is scary and it should concern every citizen in this county (sic)."

Interesting. And regardless of if you agree or disagree with Ms. Zwagerman, I'm thankful for teachers like her. They lead to good journalists.

By: superteacher on 12/15/08
As I read the letter from the Echo to the superintendent, I felt like I was reading a list of demands. I don't feel this was professional by any standards. While I see the point both sides are trying to make, Dr. Stepaniak seemed to reach out and look to reason, while the other side didn't.

By: watching on 12/15/08
How do you know it is fact-based if they refused to allow the superintendent to review it? Just because something is fact-based doesn't mean it is accurate or is legal to print. Wouldn't teaching students a broader means at looking at things provide for a better education? That civil liability exists, is a part of journalism, and how to avoid it?

BTW if you are so fixated on moving to China go ahead. I elect not to. I served this country, have seen third world counties first hand, and have paid taxes much longer than you have been alive. Including paying taxes that contributed to your public school education.

The constitution gives the right to say what I wish as long as it is not libelous. It is my choice and my responsibility if I cross the line.

By: adamkline on 12/15/08
The same rights that allow you to cross the line are the very same that allow the students to freely print their material. I would like to sincerely thank you for serving our country as I have nothing but love and respect for those that have. However, I respectfully disagree that submitting these students to censorship would benefit them in any way. I choose not to move to China because we have these rights whereas there, they do not share these liberties.

By: polarscribe on 12/15/08
"How do you know it is fact-based if they refused to allow the superintendent to review it?"

The student editors offered to allow the district's lawyers to review the article to ensure that what they had written was not libelous. Are you trying to tell me that the district's lawyers aren't smart enough to know what's libelous and what isn't? That doesn't speak very highly of the district's lawyers - or of the superintendent who hired them.

By: watching on 12/15/08
watch all you want and quote whatever you want gofaribs. You are not going to interfere with my right to free speech.

This is not a first amendment right at this point and it is not squelching the media. It is a matter of the superintendent not only exercising his rights, but also his responsibilities to review a article before it is printed.

If he goes against what is right and against legal advise and puts the school district in a liability situation, then I will address that.

By: polarscribe on 12/15/08
The school district's in a liability situation now, watching. Hello, free speech lawsuit?

If you all think Hazelwood was the last word, as Dr. Stepaniak apparently does, you all need to think again. Dean vs. Utica Schools says otherwise. If the Faribault High paper is ruled a "limited public forum," then censoring it can only be justified in extremely limited cases.

http://www.splc.org/pdf/deanvutica.pdf

By: ohce on 12/15/08
the Faribault High school Echo is a open public fourm.

By: Artj on 12/15/08
As a current student to FHS, i read the Echo every time i find a new one laying on top of a locker or sitting on a chair. I read the Echo and find articles that mean nothing to ME. I find errors that one would suspect the Echo's advisor would review and edit before printing. i am very confident the writers work very hard on each article. However, a pattern i have seen with the Echo's advisor, is that everytime she finds a small situation where she can make a big deal about it, she surely will. Im not sure if it is the news crews she wants, or just a controversy.Either way the advisor of the echo should really think about priorities in a school news paper that hardly had articles worth reading. Which is perhaps a reason why the Echo staff is so set on using one article that people actually want to read.

By: watching on 12/15/08
polarscribe. Not the same thing. The district's attorneys advise the superintendent, not the students. I am confident that had the student editors released the article for prior review, the sup would have run it passed the district's attorneys and would have followed their legal advise.

I never said the district's lawyers aren't smart enough to give legal advise. I am sure the issue they are dealing with now are the sups rights, not the student editors. I am confident in their abilities as I am the superintendents, until proven otherwise.

By: gofaribs on 12/15/08
I'm not trying to interfere with your right to free speech, watching. I'm just pointing out that you don't use it very wisely.

If you were really that worried about squelching free speech, this case would bother you.

By: watching on 12/15/08
Hello ... first amendment rights are not absolute rights. One cannot say whatever they want without being held liable if release of the information violates data practices laws or if it isn't truthful.I would have thought you would have learned this in your education. This is not a first amendment right issue at this point. It is a Hazelwood issue. Dean v. Utica is based on a different set of facts.

By: watching on 12/15/08
point all you want gofaibs.

This isn't a free speech issue at this point. When it becomes one that will be different.

By: gofaribs on 12/15/08
Any information that would violate data practices laws most likely would be information these kids couldn't get their hands on -- and certainly that Ms. Zwagerman wouldn't attempt to print. And there's no reason to assume it's not truthful.

Besides, the district's lawyers could very well have evaluated for those factors without Mr. Stepaniak having to see it.

By: watching on 12/15/08
Maybe. Data practice covered information is often times known to the public anyway. However, it becomes not only a liability, but a criminal violation if the information is wrongfully released by an entity responsible for the information.

The point I have been trying to make is that had the student editors and the advisor allowed Dr. Stepaniak to review the article, that would have put a much different light on it. They decided not to and avoided that step, thus making it a Hazelwood issue. If Dr. Stepaniak reviewed the article, and the district's lawyers advised him not to allow it to be printed, he is acting responsibly on the advise of his legal advisors. Had he reviewed it, and refused to allow it to be printed without legal standing, then he would be wrong and should be held accountable.

Why is that so hard to understand? Whether you agree or not the advisor and the student editors errored by not allowing the superintendent to review the article. There is no way to know if the article would have been allowed to be printed or not because they did not take the proper step to let the sup review it.

It is the student editors and the advisor who created this situation at this point. I aqree that the student advisor was probably reviewing the article for accuracy. However at some point, her supervisor became concerned and did his job by choosing to oversee this. That is his right and his responsibility. It is the advisor's responsibility as an employee to follow direction. She can state her point, but it is the sup who has the final say.

Try doing something like this where you work and see what happens. I bet the results won't be pleasant.

By: gofaribs on 12/15/08
I do agree with that in some respects. However, I think that it's oversimplifying to use the example of a real-life workplace, because it's rare that the objectives of your standard employee in any business would be as diametrically opposed to the objectives of an administrator at the same place.

Maybe they owed Mr. Stepaniak a chance to review it before assuming he wouldn't be OK with it. But a news-distributing organization wouldn't have a necessarily data-private administrator in the real world. That's where this mess gets a little jumbled I think.

By: watching on 12/16/08
Thanks. I think that insubordination is the issue here. Most employees know the consequences if they refuse to do what their boss tells them to do. Put yourself in his shoes. How would you handle it?

Every indication is that Dr. Stepaniak stopped the printing to buy time to get this resolved. I think that is wise. His memo indicates that he wishes to resolve this and that his hope was that the paper wouldn't be down very long.

I still feel that Dr. Stepaniak has the best interest of the school district, Ms. Prieve, the student editors and their advisor. He is balancing all of that while receiving competent legal advise. I feel that the student editor and the advisor are taking a premature stand on this issue by not allowing the district's superintendent access to the article. Regardless of case law, that will be their downfall.

Finally, as far as data practices, I do know that newspapers are very aware of data practices and from what I know of the FDN and other newspapers that I have worked with, they will consult their lawyers if they have a doubt. They want to be responsible as well as do what is right.

By: polarscribe on 12/16/08
"It seems the next thing you should be reading up on is invasion of privacy and defamation."

Truth is an absolute defense to any claim of libel. If The Echo article published only true statements about Ms. Prieve and the controversy surrounding her, then libel is a non-issue.

That's precisely why the student editors offered to have attorneys review the articles for libel concerns. Nobody wants a libel suit.

"Invasion of privacy" is a non-issue as well. Ms. Prieve is a government employee who has become embroiled in a public controversy. Reporting only true facts and statements based on interviews, public documents and legal investigations cannot be defined as "invasion of privacy."

By: polarscribe on 12/16/08
I further note that the Faribault Daily News has printed, in its entirety, the article which Dr. Stepaniak is attempting to censor. One supposes that the FDN would not have published it without reviewing it for legal concerns and finding it to be an acceptable piece of journalism.

The libel/defamation/etc. claims are entirely without merit.

By: evergreenestates on 12/16/08
OK, so, as a former student when it was called FSHS, I can tell you first hand that the ECHO was one of the most unprofessional student newspapers I have ever seen. Any Faribault resident should be ashamed that their property tax dollars are going towards that rag. It was cliquie, and that was the only way anything of importance got in. As long as you were part of the clique, whatever you did got in. And if this Zwaggerman is the same teacher who was there when I was there, which I'm almost positive she was, she is, in my opinion, and embarrassment to the education system.

Now, with that being said, I am saddened to see this kind of censorship happening at the school for this rag. However, here is an idea. The student who wrote the article, the editor, and anyone else out there, I'll guarantee you they have a myspace site, a facebook page, or any other numerous amounts of blogging areas. Post the article there, and then link it as much as possible. The superintendent can't censor your personal websites.

By: watching on 12/16/08
The libel/defamation/etc. claims are entirely without merit.

are they? doesn't the school district have a responsibility to insure that the article is not libelous and follows the case law in effect? The sup has a right to take the action he did based on the information available to him at the time. He can't be faulted if another newspaper prints the article because the student editors and their advisor refused to let him review it.

You can't claim the superintendent would have censored the article because he was not given the chance to review it. That will be the downfall of the student editors and their advisors argument.

By: polarscribe on 12/16/08
"doesn't the school district have a responsibility to insure that the article is not libelous and follows the case law in effect?"

As has been said several times, the student editors offered to submit the article for legal review to the district's lawyers, to allow them to ensure it would not be libelous. Are you saying that the superintendent is more qualified to determine what is and is not libelous than a district-employed attorney?

By: watching on 12/16/08
So the student editors offered to let the district's attorneys review the article. So what? The attorneys represent the school district, then the superintendent who is given the authority to carry out district business. Not the student editors or the advisor.

The superintendent has the responsibility for the content of the newspaper, not the attorneys. The students and their advisor failed when they elected to circumvent his authority. Had the student editors and the advisor submitted the article to Dr. Stepaniak I have no doubt he would have sent it on to the attorneys for review.

Until proven otherwise, I am confident that Dr. Stepaniak was working with the district's attorneys and was following their legal advise.

By: polarscribe on 12/16/08
No, jams, it appears you've never taken a basic media law course. Ms. Prieve has no case for anything.

The police department investigated her conduct, and the investigation established that certain allegations were made about her conduct by certain people. Those are facts in public record, established by public documents and statements by public officials.

The school district is also investigating her conduct, and she has been on administrative leave for three months. Those are facts in public record, established by public documents and statements by public officials.

Publishing the publicly-available, undisputed fact that Ms. Prieve has been investigated, is publishing the truth. Truth is an *absolute defense* to any charge of libel in the United States of America. What is true, cannot be libelous.

The story is not libelous. End of story.

By: Hello on 12/16/08
The story was offered to the school districts lawyer for review. Their legal behinds would have been covered. The superintendent could have agreed to this and met with their legal counsel at the same time.

However, Dr. Stepaniak stated on KSTP Monday evening, "This is not about that article anymore. This about whether or not the administration has the authority to see an article, any article, before it gets in the paper".

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S706869.shtml?cat=206

By: polarscribe on 12/16/08
Oh, I forgot to dispense with your equally-wrongheaded claim that she has some sort of "invasion of privacy" tort.

The contents of public records are, by definition, publicly-available information. Republishing public record information gathered by police as part of an investigation, therefore, cannot be an invasion of privacy.

You spout Supreme Court cases as if you know what they mean - when it's clear that you don't.

NYT v. Sullivan actively damages your position, as it found that for a public figure to sue for libel, one must not only prove the information to be false, but prove that it was either known to be false or published with "reckless disregard" for its veracity.

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. again restates that for a libel suit to succeed, a "defamatory falsehood" must have been published, and that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove its falsity.

Unless you're suggesting that Ms. Prieve was not investigated by the police, that she is not being investigated by the school district right now and that she is not on leave, then you yourself have laid the groundwork for the destruction of your argument. Not only can she not prove that the article is false, but it is utterly trivial to prove it true.

The article is true and based on public records of police and school district investigations. It is thus legally neither libel nor invasive of Ms. Prieve's privacy.

By: Indy on 12/16/08
The echo has been terrible for years. I remember one article that a different superintendant/school board ignored. "How to get away with drinking in high school". That was a classic that should have started this discussion long ago. The school board funds this trashy tabloid, I think they should cut the funding and be done with it. So.. is it worse for a teacher to deliberately not follow their bosses directions or to allegedly feed donuts to 8th graders?

By: sloopy on 12/16/08
I agree Indy and dince it is a school activity, ust like any other activity, it SHOULD be overseen by the administration/board just like any other activity is. There is no green card that gives this activity any such privledges and yes it is supposedly overseen by a "advisor" but it appears in this case the advisor is more of a student wanna be then a teacher/advisor and is not able to comprehend the responsibilities of the position thus facilitating the need to higher intervention. I also agree that this publication would be prime for the budget cutting for sure. Give the money to more meaningfull and purposefull activites.

By: SonnyII on 12/16/08

I think a person should submit to one's authorities and thereby honor them. In this case, the Superintendent and Board are the authorities.

By: warda on 12/16/08
I would like to thank those that recognize the Echo for what it really is ( Artj, evergreenestates, Indy), a trashy publication - far from the "fine peice of journalism" it claims itself to be. I encourage all of you to go out and find a past edition of the echo and judge for yourselves if this publication, in its current state, is worth fighting for.

By: Hello on 12/16/08
A trashy publication? The echo has been terrible for years? Have either of you read the paper in the last 2 years? Are you familiar with the work of the editiors or their advisor? Or are you entrenched in a debate that allows you judge without full knowledge? I have been reading the Echo for the last few years and have found it to be a very good paper. These students are exercising what they have being taught.
"submit to one's authorities and thereby honor them" what kind of garbage is this? Go along to get along? If there is an injustice a stand must be made. This is what the entire situation is about.
The editors heard a rumour within the student population and wanted to get the facts right. Does anyone remember the rumour mill from high school? Echo editors wanted the students to have fact based opinions, not rumours. Also to get a qualified and respected teacher back in the classroom where she will do more good than on administrative leave.

By: thatgolfrguy on 12/16/08
So all of you who maybe noticed my post from last night for some reason was taken down... I think I am going to file a lawsuit against the Daily News for censoring their opinion page. I have the right to free speech, right?!

Haha. The Echo and the opinion page here are the same thing. I am a third party (so are the students) in writing my story/opinion - the Daily News publishes the content (as does ISD 656 with the Echo). The Echo has no merit in this fight.

Oh, my attorney just returned my call. Gotta go file my case!

Go Dr. Bob !

By: JohnAgliata on 12/16/08
Thatgolfrguy,
Just a quick message... posts are taken down only if they are potentially libelous, are off topic (using one story to talk about a completely different topic) or if they resort to name calling instead of a discussion on the ideas being presented. In this case, your first post was removed because of the third reason.

The latest post was, of course, fine!

I'm enjoying reading the debate going on here. Please keep it respectful and centered on the ideas being presented! Good work, Faribault!

John Agliata
Managing Editor.

By: khois09 on 12/16/08
Out of all do respect to everyone commenting, I disagree with many of you.
I am a student of Kelly Zwagermans, and she is by far the most knowledgeable and professional teacher I have ever had. Many of you are commenting and picking sides without really fully understanding the story. Ms. Zwagerman is doing the right thing, in my eyes. The superintendent basically said that he is closing down our newspaper "just because he can" on live television. I think someone might be on a major power trip.
Please, before you judge Kelly Zwagerman, get to know her first. She is an amazing teacher and she is teaching us how to stand up for ourselves and fight for our 1st ammendment right, which is being stripped from us. She has more expirence than most teachers in the Faribault School District, and until we got our new superintendent, there was no questioning her judgement. We're not a radical students, we just would like respect to write what we choose like every other person. Our work has never been inappropriate, so why would we be shut down?
Our superintendent needs to get off his high horse and realize there are bigger things in life to worry about than our school's newspaper, like the constant fights, racial tension, and drug use going on at our school.
Thank you! :)

By: thatgolfrguy on 12/16/08
John - Love the screen name. It wasn't hard to guess who you were! haha...

Question for you... - Is my theory in my latest post correct? (In regards to the Echo/Daily News comparison)

Thanks!

I'm off to the links - I hear there are a few golf courses open in northern MN.

Spellcheck is key - some people need to utilize this feature!

And Khois - if these problems you speak of, (like the constant fights, racial tension, and drug use) - why don't the students of the Echo focus on these problems with their stories ? As a former editor - here are my thoughts... Since the story about Ms. Prieve ran in the FDN already - isn't the Echo just publishing old news anyway? Why would a newspaper want to publish old news? I know that John Agliata isn't going to write a story about the war in Irag starting - that is old news! Then again, the name of the paper is "The Echo"... no pun intended.

By: JohnAgliata on 12/16/08
Thatgolfrguy,
Days like today are why God invented orange golf balls, right?

The theory you brought up in your previous post is interesting, but I find the issue to be different. I wrote about this in some detail in my blog, which you can find off the home page.

By: Indy on 12/16/08
Ms. Zwagerman has really done a great job at coaching the students "Khols09" and "adamkline" with her view of the first amendment and publications in public schools. I think it is time to fully appreciate the other side. People who feel that information isn't necessary to spread, even if it exists are equally important. Privacy was not one of the main issues 250 years ago because people needed to work harder for their food and didn't really have time to worry about Tom, Dick OR Harry. Now we have people at whim (this blog is an example) that can spread thoughts without so much as a second glance. The district has a responsibility to not only look at the Echo but also the curriculum of this course because they fund it with tax dollars. I hope the first amendment instruction aligns with state and national standards, not anyones opinion.

By: ice9 on 12/16/08
Her "view" of the first amendment? Great Scott. You can have freedoms, you all, but only if you're nice about it. Oy.
With a few exceptions, this conversation is close to illiterate. Watching especially has no clue what he is saying. The central issue here is prior restraint; everything flows from that. Censoring a newspaper—any newspaper—is unconstitutional; it can only happen in the narrowest and most exigent of situations. And that is good.
If the student newspaper, once published, contains errors that are actionable—that is, libelous—then the paper would have to take the consequences, but the courts fall almost always on the side of freedom of expression, as they should. Halting publication on a worry or a whim is only constitutional within the narrow constraints (and getting narrower, thankfully) of Hazelwood. Hazelwood is a terrible decision, by the way. Its tortured reasoning is inconsistent and destructive. But it is in force—just not in this case.
Whether the paper is a clique or is not very well written is relevant only to establishing a curricular reason for oversight—the Hazelwood case—but this situation is explicitly not curricular. There’s no history of any oversight. The paper is explicitly described and operated as an open forum. Clearly a Tinker situation. In fact the superintendent has diminished (but not ruined) his chances for prevailing with Hazelwood precedents by openly arguing that the censorship is based on the articles content and not its execution. And trust me, that matters (read the case law.) By the time the court considers the case, Utica will apply, the story will be airtight and clean, and the superintendent will look bad and so will your town.
Whether the sponsor is ensuring good spelling or making big deals about little things is even more irrelevant, though it does remind us of how poorly Americans understand their own freedoms (and therefore how endangered those freedoms are.) I’m pretty sure that the correspondents here would not want their freedom of expression predicated on whether they split infinitives, or their freedom of assembly predicated on whom they choose to assemble with. Happily, those freedoms are not evaluated that way. Freedom is freedom, and (watching, for you) it is an absolute as far as prior restraint is concerned. Would you care to have Faribault honored as a watchword for censorship in a supreme court decision that damages thousands of student newspapers in the interest of butt-covering, or avoiding embarrassment, or silencing atheists, or enforcing puritanical standards of language or image? What an honor.
As for your sponsor and her students, I read the letters and (contrary to some posters here) found them to be models of moderation, clarity, professionalism, and appropriate focus. That is partly due to the fact that the Student Press Law Center is advising the paper, which, by the way, means that they have formidable legal representation. If the superintendent doesn’t want to get humiliated, he should reconsider his arguments and seek common ground. It’s patently obvious that he is attempting to censor the paper out of concern for public relations, a condition that is explicitly forbidden by precedents five or six deep.
This sort of infringement is countereducational and damaging. When properly encouraged Americans are very quick to relinquish the freedoms that other people on this planet desperately want. When a better deal or a conflict of interest arises (Watching, for example, with his obvious interest in the article’s subject rather than the freedoms involved) we are perfectly happy to concoct any argument to circumvent the freedoms of our fellows. It’s a shame.

By: markmywordz on 12/16/08
Watching: please note!

The word "advice" is spelled with a 'c' and not an 's'.

Also you state "The constitution gives the right to say what I wish as long as it is not libelous." I don't even want to go into the many ways in which that is not correct.

But you also said "Just because something is fact-based doesn't mean it is accurate or is legal to print."

How are facts not accurate? You probably ought to learn a little about libel law before you make these kinds of statements.

Libel is the publication of known FALSEHOODS that are printed either outright knowing they are false or not caring enough to make sure they aren't false.

The ONLY reason for any prior approval in this issue should be to ensure the students don't engage in libel on this story.

However, had the students submitted the story for prior approval, it would have been very, very easy for the Superintendent to deny the publication of the article outright (to avoid the embarrasment), rather than instead making certain the article was entirely factual.

Avoiding embarrassment is not a reason to allow prior restraint. Avoiding litigation is.

But consider this, don't you think there is a strong and compelling public interest in avoiding all kinds of lawsuits against the district.

What about the lawsuit by the parents of the student(s) allegedly 'contacted' by the teacher? They could very easily sue the district for not having enough internal controls and adequate hiring practices to make sure conduct like the kind alleged doesn't happen? Those kinds of lawsuits get filed by parents against school districts all the time. And, that would be a much more expensive lawsuit than the kind being threatened over free speech rights?

But that kind of hiring practice and lack of internal control are far more dangerous to the district and far too easily hidden and swept under the rug by the very practices the superintendent is trying to engage in by restraining the speech of the student newspaper.

There are times when you have to understand that just because the Supreme Court has issued a ruling in a case, like the ruling in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, doesn't mean it made the right ruling. (anyone remember Plessy v. Ferguson). The Hazelwood decision was wrong and should be overturned someday, maybe this case will do it.

By: thatgolfrguy on 12/16/08
We have an Aussie commenting now! Oy!

By: watching on 12/16/08
markmywordz note. Sorry. Sometimes my "i" doesn't work and the spell checker caught the "advce" and turn it to advise and didn't catch it. I humbly apologize.

Thanks for your opinions on this. You have your opinion and I have mine, and we are looking at this from different perspectives, so I am going to leave it at that.

By the way the word "words" is spelled with a 's' not a 'z' (said in jest to keep things light.)

By: jams on 12/16/08
Polarscribe,
If I was a lay person, I may interpret those cases to mean what you stated above. But the reason, I cited those cases is they clearly define the difference between a private person and a public person. Within in cases, there are rules that are cited sometimes more important then the actual holding or outcome of the case because it illustrates the careful analysis the Court conducts.

My point was to illustrate that in fact she isn’t a public figure. In light of what you may say, the only reason why she has been publicly acknowledge is due to this issue with publishing the ECHO story on her. Lets not forget that she hasn’t been charged with anything and the county attorney has no intention of charging her unless more evidence paints a different picture. She is being placed in false light and that’s one of the arguments that could be easily made for a invasion of privacy case. Invasion of privacy has many elements and cannot be define by your definition alone. That’s what case law establishes.

Also in respects to defamation, looking beyond the dictionary definition is important. Specifically, looking at the Restatement 2 of Torts §588. If you look at the element of fault , it only needs to amount to negligence does not mean you have to show actual malice as you would need to if you were a public figure in fact it lowers the standard to be much easier then cited in those cases.

You’re wrong in prescribing that I know nothing and should take a basic media law course. The law doesn’t just stop at the laws relative to the media. A basic course in mass media law wouldn’t give me enough knowledge to explain the constitutional aspects, tort aspects, or any other relevant aspects of the law that could potentially result in a lawsuit.

It’s important to look at the big picture.

By: snakeldy on 12/16/08
Isn't the point of a school newspaper to "teach". Shouldn't the point of high school be to get these kids ready for the real world? If you work for a newspaper in the real world doesn't the editor have the final say on what is being printed in "his" newspaper. I think that the editor of the Echo had every right to not publish the article. It's a good lesson for these kids. It doesn't matter what you think is right or wrong. All that matters is what your boss says. Either do as your told or quit.

By: tracyb on 12/17/08
In the past week I have read with great interest the stories and comments
regarding Mrs. Prieve and the associated Echo censoring article. I have read
this partly because I too am a former Editor of the Echo, but more so
because Mrs. Prieve is my sister.

Every since I could remember my sister wanted to be a teacher. I recall
her sitting me down in the basement and playing school with me and a handful
of ghost students. I was clearly the most attentive. After graduating from
college she substitute taught for several years until she landed a full-time
job in the same schools that taught her. Needless to say the past few months
and especially this past week has been devastating for her and our family. I
imagine too that for the students and their parents involved in the
investigation this time has been quite trying for them as well. I can
understand why the Daily News printed the article. Shelly is a public
employee and situations like this are truly news. And while its all been
heartbreaking to read, I commend them for not only saying that no charges
were filed, but that the District Attorney's office has no intentions of
filing any. That is a very important statement and some newspapers may not
have went that extra step.

I recall from my days at FSHS, as it was called then, a math teacher by the
name of Harvey Schultz. I'm sure many reading this do as well. Mr. Schultz
was unconventional in his teaching style to say the least, but it was
because he cared about his students. He even offered us the opportunity to
come to his house if we needed extra assistance. I never took him up on the
offer, but others did. For those that know him he's a big guy. One day in
class he did a handstand. Like I said, unconventional.

A similar thing could be said about my sister. As many of you may have read,
some of the bloggers are her former students and she is very well liked
among them. Some might argue that its not a teachers job to be their friend,
and to some extend I agree. But she teaches eighth grade, a difficult time
in many kids lives. Parents in some cases are too busy, or perhaps don't
even care. And it is at that age were delinquent behavior often starts.
Having an adult figure be there for them, whether that be a teacher, coach,
pastor or neighbor can make or break some kids. It is also true that line
can't be overstepped, a fine line at that. Perhaps in this day and age
giving out your phone number to students or offering them rides is a bad
idea, but that level of caring is not any different than some teachers her
and I had, and perhaps more students should have. And that leads me to Ms.
Zwagerman.

I have long said Ms. Zwagerman is the best teacher I ever had, and she's not
conventional either. She was one of the best I had not because I learned
about journalism, but because of the life lessons that were in part formed
in her classroom. The lesson that if you want something bad enough and you
work hard for it, great things will come your way. My senior year the Echo
received an award that only two other high schools in the nation received,
one of my classmates was the MN State Journalist of the year and I was the
Journalist of the Year at FSHS. It was a proud time in my life and the
history of the Echo. I know that Ms. Zwagerman has mentioned our class to
the current students on the paper in years after us, perhaps this year is no
exception. Point being is that great teachers like Mr. Schultz, Ms.
Zwagerman and my sister are typically unconventional. They find ways to
touch their students and impact their lives. And often times that means
doing things different than the herd. When I was at FSHS the school was
filled with average teachers, a few gems, and more than a few horrible ones.
Those teachers nobody needs. Yet they just solider on teaching the same
lessons year after year as if they were a robot. And nobody says anything
because they create no waves. Its the teachers that genuinely care and find
ways to get through to their students that we need more of. Lots more of.

So we come to the recent article that Superintendent Stepaniak shut down the
Echo. A lot has been made of this story and that of the original one
published by the Daily News. Many of those comments and arguments are based
in the legality of this all. As schools don't teach students about "life
lessons" and parents in many cases don't either, I will here.

Lesson #1: Just because you have the legal right to do something doesn't
mean you have to, or even perhaps should. Case in point a few years ago. A
co-worker of mine sent me a sexually explicate email. Had I printed it out
and walked into our owners office she most likely would have been
dismissed right there and then. But I didn't do that. Why? Because even
though she was bad at her job I wasn't going to be the one to get her
dismissed. Rather I emailed her back and told her I wasn't interested. Yeah
it was awkward for a time but I still did the right thing. People make
mistakes, crucifying them isn't always the right course of action. In the
case of these current Editors I think, and perhaps on advice from Ms.
Zwagerman, they have made a poor choice. First off it is possible that the
article could have been reviewed and deemed acceptable to print. Secondly,
why print the story at all? There is no "scope" here, no news. The Daily
News has already told the story and nothing has changed since that article.
The only logical reason is to drum up publicity and print a story that is
controversial and that could perhaps propel this edition to accolades. For
the first point you have succeeded as the Twin Cities media has picked up
the story. To the second point, read on.

Lesson #2: At times using your moral compass and exercising wise judgment is
your best course of action. Even Daily News Editor John Agliata has
acknowledged the difficulty the lies with these decisions to print certain
articles. All other things aside lets look at the impact this article could
do. First off we know that some of the students involved in this
investigation are former students of my sister. That means they now are
students at the high school. What impact will a story that everyone that
would get the Echo already knows have on them? And what about my sister, and
her husband, and their four perfect children? And my parents and grandmother
who still live in Faribault? There is a time when to say enough is enough.
Remember that no charges have or will be filed. At some point people are
entitled to their lives. Telling what would amount to a redundant story is a
waste of the newspaper its printed on.

Now I'd like to speak directly to Christen Hildebrandt and Ben Jackson and
the rest of the Echo staff. The big story isn't always the juicy one that
discredits someone. Use your time, talents and resources to write articles
to bring the Echo back to prominence in not only the state, but the nation
as well. You contributed to the original article in the Daily News and you
can put that in your portfolio. But there is a thousand stories to tell. We
did a huge piece on what was entitled "The Game of Sex". Edgy for sure,
controversial perhaps. But it talked about things high schoolers should know
and Health class doesn't teach. We had such articles as personal anonymous
stories of students who contracted STD's and other like things. It was
informative, thought provoking and powerful.

But its another story that 10 years later hit me as to how powerful a
journalist's responsibility is and the impact they can have. Late in my
senior year my co-editor, who was adopted, suggested we do an issue on
adoption. Great idea. I landed a story about a fellow classmate of mine that
I knew and she knew me, but we didn't run in the same circles. I interviewed
her in the courtyard about when she was 15 and she gave birth and
immediately gave her child up for adoption to a family member in Canada. It
was heartbreaking because even though it was a relative of her's she almost
never was allowed to see her child as was previously agreed upon. I remember
all this even 17 years later by memory. We formed a friendship that day in
the courtyard that had it ended there would have been one of those moments
you never forget. For I was her voice and she was able to tell her story.
But it didn't end there. Ten years later at our class reunion she came up to
me, gave me a hug, and told me that periodically she takes that article out,
reads it, and it helps her through the tough times. Wow. I gave her
something she will remember the rest of her life. And I will to.

So Christen and Bob you can press on fighting the fight, doing nothing but
creating negative press for Faribault and the Echo, or you can use the power
you have to tell an even better story. A story that impacts your fellow
classmates and perhaps changes just one of their lives. Write that story and
send it to me, I'd love to read it.

And Ms. Zwagerman I have an assignment for you too. The Echo and the entire
school is better off with you there, no doubt. Leaving is pointless and
doesn't provide future high schoolers the opportunity to be one of your
students. I agree sometimes you need to rock the boat, I do it at work
myself from time to time when its appropriate, but this isn't that time. For
the story has already been told. Teach your students not only what their
responsibilities are as a journalist, but as a productive member of society
as well. Build on the lessons I mentioned above and another you know well.
That life can be snatched from you at any moment and what do you want your
legacy to be. Is it that you battled a First Amendment issue or you gave a
classmate an article to read for life.

By: JohnAgliata on 12/17/08
Tracy,
A very well-thought-out and impressive post that shows good perspective on all the issues involved. There are many who might not agree with everything you said, but I appreciate your contribution to this debate.

Sincerely,
John Agliata
Managing Editor.

By: soundzz on 12/17/08
tracyb, Thank you. Sometimes it seems we get so caught up with rights, legalities, strong beliefs, that we forget to be compassionate, understanding and genuine to ourselves and others.

By: watching on 12/17/08
Thanks Tracy. You put real people with real feelings behind this story. It is a very good lesson to all.

It's time to get over this, everyone get back to what they are suppose to, and get Mrs. Prieve back to work.

Remember this Mrs. Prieve, there are people out here who can look past the BS and think that you should go back to work ASAP.

By: watching on 12/17/08
Here's another thought. Student editors should meet and work with Mr. Agliata and their 'boss', Dr. Stepaniak, starting anew, where everyone can discuss this issue wth an open mind, resolve it, and learn from it.

Learning is the reason why student are in journalism. Learning is a life-long experience and I have no doubt that Dr. Stepnaniak and Mr. Agliata would share their expertise and also walk away having learned something new.

By: khois09 on 12/17/08
As a current member of Ms. Zwagermans, I am highly opinionated on this subject. First and foremost, I think those who are judging Kelly before they know her are way out of line. She is not a radical who would break the rules just because she can, but she is encouraging us to exercise our first amendment right. The very popular Echo is shut down because the superintendent feels he is able to. He said it is no longer about the Prieve article. The articles written in the Echo for decades are very appropriate and are written by mature students, guided by a very professional teacher, Ms. Zwagerman.
We, students, are not rebelious and trying to fight the power of the school, we just feel there is no need to question our judgement, especially since many of the writers are 18 years old. I am probably more conservative than most people, yet I still feel that the superintendent is on a power trip and shutting down the echo because he has the power to.
If the superintendent reviews all articles, it is not the voice of the students, but more his own. Mr. Turtle thinks the Echo and yearbook are a waste of time and money. Almost all students disagree.
This is a highschool, not the Star Tribune, let us write what we want, not what the superintendent wants. These are our memories and our school we attend, his years in highschool are clearly over.

By: thatgolfrguy on 12/17/08
Tracy - GREAT post. Appreciate the humbling, fact filled post...

Khois,

I am slightly confused.

"This is a highschool, not the Star Tribune, let us write what we want, not what the superintendent wants. These are our memories and our school we attend, his years in highschool are clearly over."

You want to remember your high school days with the Shelly Prieve story? Why don't you write about things in the high school? That is what we did when I was in high school. We wrote about things that SHOULD be remembered.

And you are not "highly opinionated" you are "VERY BIASED."

You need to look at the facts. You have no constitutional right to publish anything in the Echo. None.

Companies don't publish stories for legal reasons - the same with the Echo and ISD 656. Dr. Stepaniak is not on a power trip, he is protecting the school district. I find it disturbing how you so easily insult your school leaders. Your posts are malicious and crude - speak with facts, not opinions. Miss Zwagerman has taught you that I am sure.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in the Journalism room these days... I bet there is some fierce discussion...

By: tomc on 12/18/08
Tractb,
Thank you for your post. We need to be reminded that there are real people behind this "story". I have known Ms. Prieve for a number of years and lacking any evidence of wrongdoing am more than ever convinced that "story" is more suited to the National Enquirer than a topic for serious journalism.