Leave Them Kids Alone

in

The censorship of a Tennessee high school newspaper has brought a First Amendment question back to the chalkboard: When do we limit First Amendment principles in schools?

Earlier this week, Oak Ridge High School principal Becky Ervin recalled 1,800 copied of the student newspaper because it contained an article about birth control methods and an article about tattoos and body piercings. Superintendent Tom Bailey defended the principal’s decision, telling the AP, "We have a responsibility to the public to do the right thing. We've got 14-year-olds that read the newspaper."

Oak Ridge students have reportedly attended school board meetings with hand-written protest shirts that read “censor,” but school administrators do have legal justification for their actions.

The Supreme Court ruled in “Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District” (1969) that the First Amendment does apply to public schools. However, a later decision, “Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier” (1988), seriously limited First Amendment freedoms, citing that administrators can censor non-forum student newspapers.

While Oak Ridge High School educators have the legal ability to censor their student newspaper, they should shelve personal bias and seek a higher standard for supporting First Amendment-entitled freedoms.

Ervin and Bailey are right to take responsibility for the content exposed to students at the school. However, they ought to recognize that an article about effectiveness of contraceptives or an alternative article about abstinence is relevant to a high school audience. Even freshmen are curious about sex, at the very least.

More importantly, they should uphold the First Amendment principles taught in their classrooms.

High school, the last academic endeavor for most Americans, is where American values are taught. Civil rights achievements are glorified in history classrooms. Democratic elections are analyzed and explained in political science classrooms. Yet, at the same institution where we celebrate our freedoms, we limit them, too. High school educators should be aware that they are preparing their students for real world challenges and they should provide them with a real world environment - where First Amendment rights are honored.

Look Ma, I Got Published

in

WIB faithful, I almost forgot to tell you. I had an article published in the Nov. 24 issue of the Bellingham Weekly. The article's about a staple downtown business moving around the corner. Ground-breaking investigative journalism, I say. If you can't pick up the paper in town, you can download the PDF. The story's on page 27.

Getting Hyped About Hybrids

in

If I were to buy another car, for argument's sake, I'd get a hybrid. Why you ask? Because they're fuel-efficient, and that means I'd be helping out the environment, or at least I'd balance out Scott's environmental destruction.

According to new proposals in Congress, saving the environment could be the only benefit of owning a hybrid soon. Not to downplay environmental preservation, but I'm drawn to the financial breaks. That's a big reason why people buy hybrids. But those financial breaks are burning out faster than fossil fuels.

2005 is the last year car purchasers can claim the full $2,000 tax break that's been offered since 2002. And worse yet, hybrid drivers may be taxed higher for buying less fuel. That's right - drivers may be punished for buying less fuel. Less fuel consumption decreases the income Uncle Sam receives the from federal gas tax, which is deposited in the federal Highway Trust Fund. According to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce report, the federal Highway Trust Fund is running out of money and Congress has to look for alternatives.

According to the AP, last year, the House Transportation Committee suggested raising the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax, set in 1993, 4 or 5 cents to accommodate inflation. However, W. threatened to veto any tax raises at that time, and it didn't happen. The Highway Trust Fund needs $500 billion for road and bridge maintenance through 2015. So, the House Transportation Committee will propose raising the federal gas tax again, expanding tolling and bonding use and taxing hybrid car drivers.

Despite the urgency for these funds, I don't think this is the time to punish people for owning hybrids. Removing the $2,000 tax break (which will drop to $500 in 2006 and be phased out in 2007) is enough already. The hybrid market is still in its infancy, and Congress should support any market that steers Americans away from fuel consumption.

Drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is nearly inevitable (it passed in the Senate, but halted in the House), but such habitats wouldn't have to be victimized if legislation supported fuel efficient or fuel alternative technology. Lay off the hybrid car tax and give car buyers the green light to buy fuel-efficient vehicles.

Christmas List, Yo

in

Paolo's Christmas List:

  1. Starbucks gift cards
  2. Black or white Pumas (size 10.5)
  3. Family Guy season 4, volume 3 DVD
  4. Seinfeld season 5 DVD (not the "Puffy Shirt" collector's edition)
  5. Seinfeld season 6 DVD (not the "Puffy Shirt" collector's edition)
  6. Batman Begins DVD
  7. "The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century" by Thomas Friedman
  8. "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything" by Steven Levitt
  9. "Room Full of Mirrors: A Biography of Jimi Hendrix" by Charles Cross
  10. "On the Road" by Jack Kerouac
  11. 1 GB Compact Flash card
  12. Umbrella