On May 10, 2016, the Playwickian received a directive from Neshaminy’s administration to publish an article without editing the name of Neshaminy’s mascot. The editors that were available to attend an after school meeting agreed to have the word edited and the article published on the website.
At 4:28 p.m., the Editor in Chief, Timothy Cho, logged into his account on the Playwickian’s website and published the edited article. About one hour later, the article was removed and the account was deleted.
The editors had expected a discussion with administration, perhaps some questioning and investigation before such an action was taken. The editors lost access to the website, leaving the entirety of the Playwickian unable to access its website to publish, remove or edit its contents.
The following is the excerpt from Policy 600 that defines the guidelines for the administration’s role in the Playwickian’s website.
“Electronic Publication of Playwickian – Each paper edition of the Playwickian may also be published on the School District’s website. In reproducing the Playwickian on the School District’s website, the School District’s webmaster shall ensure the following: 1) that the entire publication is reproduced on-line; 2) that only the current issue is “posted” with an archive accessible through links to past editions going back at least three calendar years; and 3) that ‘comments,’ ‘likes’ and those sort of features shall not be allowed on the website in general or in connection with the Playwickian. “
Nowhere in Policy 600 does it explicitly grant administration the power to delete and publish articles or delete an editor’s account. Under this policy, administration is tasked with ensuring that the entire publication is available on the website, a functioning archive exists that dates back to at least three years and that any comments and likes are prohibited. The ability to delete and publish is not an enumerated power within the school district’s own policy.
Policy 600 has invited administrative manipulation in their favor, taking advantage of students’ legal naivety. Administration has forced us to rely upon external legal organizations to defend our rights as editors.
Giving the Editor in Chief an ultimatum on Friday, May 13–publish the unedited article and receive the access to the website or refuse to do so, having administration publish the unedited article and still lack access–is not how administrators should act with students. It was a stiff-arm maneuver that gave an either-or decision to Cho with negative consequences as a result of either decision. If he chose to publish the article, he would have betrayed all that the editors believe in. The editors have a certain level of independence from administration and its oversight, granted by Pennsylvania State Code 12.9, the landmark Supreme Court case ruling of Tinker v Des Moines and the United States Constitution. Cho, instead, chose to refuse to publish the article, deciding to sacrifice access to the website in order to obey our morals and ideals as editors.
For this, the Playwickian has been reprimanded. On May 16, 2016, administration published the article on our website, with no edits made to the aforementioned word. In regards to the website, Policy 600 provides no substantial enumeration of administration’s ability to publish content. The “webmaster” is tasked with ensuring: “That the entire publication is reproduced on-line; that only the current issue is ‘posted’ with an archive accessible through links to past editions going back at least three calendar years; and that ‘comments,’ ‘likes’ and those sort of features shall not be allowed on the website in general or in connection with the Playwickian.” The “webmaster” is not granted with the task of publishing student-produced material that Robert McGee deems worthy of publication.
We urge Neshaminy administration to reconsider their recent actions, not merely to concede to the fact that the administration and McGee have overstepped their roles, according to the state code and their own policy, but to place our relationship, as administrators and student journalists, back on track towards a peaceful compromise between administrative oversight and student journalists’ rights.

This editorial represents the unanimous view of the editorial board