By Unsigned Editorial Board
The controversy surrounding Policy 600 is a divisive one, but if there is one truth everyone can agree on it is this—the School Board of Directors should serve to improve the Neshaminy educational experience, and all polices created by them should seek to achieve this aim. That is not the case with Policy 600, the broad, overreaching board policy governing the district’s student publications. Much has been said about the illegality of the policy, and this conversation often brings about arguments over the legal roles of administrators.
Though the Editorial Board believes Policy 600 includes clauses which breach state and constitutional law, we also see a great need to focus on the educational purpose of this policy. Policy 600 has not only failed to help the school publications program, it has hurt it. The educational value of Neshaminy has decreased due to its passage, and dozens of students have seen the strength of their respective programs—Yearbook, the Playwickian, and the Howler—weakened.
Coming into this school year, a great question remained unanswered—how exactly would a newspaper operate under this sort of policy? We question how a board could pass a policy amidst criticism from professional journalism groups, like the Society of Professional Journalists, who addressed Board President Scott Congdon in a letter saying “ [ Policy 600] was failing your students,” and would leave students “ unprepared for college and uncompetitive in the work force.” So how exactly is Policy 600 doing this, now that it is in full effect, and The Playwickian is making a paper under it?
Our new set of guidelines is a hindrance to success.
The Playwickian is now government speech. What the policy fails to clarify is what this means: The writing of students may be the property of the district; it may not be. The writing of The Playwickian may be more susceptible to censorship; it may not be. Are there certain topics which government speech may not be able to talk about—like religion? If student editors are representatives of the government, than do they have to concur with the viewpoint of the government?
Are they compelled to do so? Does it mean that editorial action qualifies as censorship, since we are state actors? There could be unforeseen consequences to declaring student speech as being the speech of the government.
We cannot speak for the Board on why these restrictions were included and passed. The Playwickian does not know what will happen under this policy, or what effects it will truly have in the long term. The short term effects have thus far been detrimental to our programs, and our education. We say we are unsure of the future; but we are sure of one thing—that The Playwickian will continue on its mission: to achieve the highest level of journalistic quality and professionalism, to encourage thinking, to educate its members in lessons of writing, respect, and life in the process, and to guarantee a renewed freedom of student expression.
