AHS papers tossed after editorial

Destruction of an edition of Albemarle High School newspaper The Revolution is being called one of the “silliest” censorship cases in years and a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Students had printed the edition, which featured an editorial questioning whether student-athletes need gym class, but the copies were trashed before students could see them after administrators heard complaints from physical education teachers.

“It’s one of the silliest censorship cases I’ve ever seen,” Student Press Law Center attorney Adam Goldstein said Thursday. “I don’t think there’s any question this was an act of censorship contrary to what the First Amendment would permit.”

Albemarle High School Principal Jay Thomas said the newspapers were destroyed for multiple reasons.

“The quality of the paper — there [were] some typos in there — the impact to the author of the editorial,” Thomas said. “I think those were the main points of discussion when it was brought forward.”

Student writers do not believe it.

“Not only am I not buying it,” Sean Cudahy said, “I know for a fact that was not part of the decision.”

“I was in the meeting,” said Cudahy, who recently graduated as the student-run paper’s editor-in-chief. When I say the typo didn’t play a role in holding the paper I know that for a fact, because I was there in that meeting and that was never even brought to the table.”

Newspaper reprinted

The eight-page newspaper was reprinted two weeks later, on June 2, without the editorial.

Staff writer Ellie Leech, who wrote the editorial and will be the newspaper’s editor-in-chief next school year, said she believes her First Amendment rights were violated and that it was made clear her editorial was the problem.

Leech questioned in her editorial whether student-athletes should be required to take gym class, considering they receive more than adequate exercise and physical training playing organized sports. Changing physical education requirements could save money during a financial crisis, she argued, and student-athletes might be able to make better use of that school period.

Comparing the amount of productive exercise students receive in PE class “to the amount of time a student-athlete spends in practice, pushing their bodies infinitely harder than they would in gym class, the conclusion can realistically be drawn that it is ridiculous to make student-athletes take gym,” the unpublished editorial stated.

Kim Aust, adviser to the student newspaper and yearbook, said halting distribution of the newspaper is “a decision that I made.”

“It just seemed like there were a lot of things that just weren’t quite right,” she said, noting typos and criticism from gym teachers who found out about the editorial being published in the monthly newspaper’s last edition of the year.

“There is the factor that people wouldn’t have a chance to respond to that editorial because it would be summer,” said Aust, who is listed on the school’s Web site as an English and journalism teacher.

Leech responded: “That’s not a legitimate reason. And we would be happy to publish letters in August.”

Though she disagreed with the decision not to publish her editorial, Leech said she believes Aust and Thomas had good intentions, and that they are “wonderful people.”

Though Thomas said administrators are still deciding whether to allow publication of the editorial in August, Aust said that if Leech wants the editorial to run in its original form this fall, it “absolutely” will.

Another factor in deciding whether to publish the editorial was whether Leech, a rising junior, could handle criticism that she might be subjected to, Aust said. Aust added: "Ellie is a really capable student."

‘One-sided’ opinion

Schools communications coordinator Maury Brown wrote in an e-mail to school officials, notifying them of the situation, “PE teachers expressed some concern over the editorial, as well as the quality of the final publication. In particular, PE teachers were concerned that the opinion article was one-sided.”

Brown also wrote in the e-mail, “It is important that in any response to the public that we not appear to condone censorship. In this case, the advisor felt that the students had not produced a quality product, and, on that basis, felt that a reprint was in order, and that a broader, more in-depth examination of the issue of PE requirements be undertaken by student reporters. It is also important to note that the issue will be brought forward in the August edition.”

Leech dismissed claims that she might be afraid of criticism, adding that she has expressed no concerns about backlash.

Facing criticism

“In the past, they’ve published far more critical editorials,” she said. “I’m going to face a lot of criticism in my life. I’ve faced criticism from articles [I’ve written].”

“If we only write glowing opinions about the school, we’re not doing our job. It’s not our job to be cheerleaders,” Leech said.

Cudahy said PE teachers had argued that the editorial could cause disruption, which he said neither he nor Goldstein believes would have been the case.

“PE teachers themselves felt like if students read the article, that could lead to them not wanting to participate or put forth good effort in gym class,” Cudahy said. “According to the Supreme Court … disruption must be a legitimate material event.”

Goldstein said that organizing a walkout is the type of thing that student newspapers are prohibited from.

“Disruption is a physical event that prevents the operation of school,” Goldstein said. “I don’t see student-athletes throwing their arms up and walking out of gym class because of this editorial. In terms of it being one-sided, it was an opinion piece. The First Amendment doesn’t require you to disagree with yourself.”

“I just don’t understand that a gym teacher’s feelings are so hurt by suggesting that some people are already physically fit,” Goldstein said of the case. “I just don’t know of any other school districts that would have censored something like this.”

The head of the PE department could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Goldstein said that the students would have a strong case for a lawsuit and that he could help them find counsel to represent them pro bono. Cudahy and Leech said they are not planning to file a lawsuit.