Statute Midwifery: Nurturing Passage of a State Student Publications Act.
This paper reviews research concerning the attitudes that principals, journalism advisers, high school journalism press association directors, and student editors hold toward student publications, and it reviews research concerning effective political strategies. The study focuses particularly on the strategies employed by supporters of student press legislation in Arkansas, where such legislation, despite the state's politically conservative orientation, was passed finally in 1995. A detailed history of attempts to draft legislation palatable to all parties involved shows how convoluted a process it became. Supporters of the Arkansas Student Publications Act found that it was only by applying information from both surveys of those associated with high school publications and surveys of those involved in the political processes that they were able to draft successful legislation. First, supporters built a wide base of support for their proposed bill. When that base of support seemed about to unravel, they framed the issue in terms all could appreciate and also compromised on some issues. Second, supporters found effective legislative sponsors, all of whom were well-respected Democrats with rural constituencies, and two of whom were experienced legislators who had either media or teaching backgrounds. Third, and perhaps most importantly, supporters negotiated with the opposition before the opposition had a change to mobilize its forces. They managed to convince the opposition that the proposed act was a win-win-win situation for administrators, advisers and students. (Contains 24 references; 5 appendixes contain successive drafts of the bill). (Author/TB) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * from the original document. *********************************************************************** Statute Midwifery: Nurturing Passage of a State Student Publications Act
Self-Censorship and Freedom of the Public High School Press
For more than 25 years, researchers harbored three basic assumptions about the scholastic press: a) that school officials have shown little respect for student journalists' First Amendment rights; b) that student journalists are too deferential to school authorities; and c) that the student press tends to avoid controversial topics.Researchers expected to find that the situation had worsened after the Supreme Court's 1988 Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier decision, which allowed school officials to censor school-sponsored publications that are not public forums and to muzzle the speech of faculty members. Research following the ruling suggested that was not the case, however.Post-Hazelwood researchers found that high school principals and publications advisers did not see much change in the amount of student-newspaper censorship following the ruling. Critics of such research, however, say that these results are based upon arguably biased reports. They also suggest that unpublished prohibitions on content, pressure on student journalists, intimidation and student deference often negate the need for overt censorship. Phillips surmised the following from her pre-and post-Hazelwood study of North Carolina high schools:In all schools, advisers exert subtle pressure and, in practice, most of them are censors by the definition applied in this study: both cutting controversial material and instituting a policy or atmosphere of intimidation that causes students to refrain from printing certain materials in the school newspaper. Clearly, persistent student editor deference to such authority has a stultifying effect on the student press.(1)Post-Hazelwood researchers usually have studied only censorship and have been unable to determine if self-censorship is a problem for the scholastic press. Neither have they determined why press freedom did not suffer after the Hazelwood ruling. Their research points out the need for a reassessment of the extent of press freedom at U.S. public high schools. It also identifies a need to study factors associated with scholastic press freedom.Previous studiesStudies before 1969 often found that scholastic press freedom was limited by the whims of school officials.(2) But in 1969, the Supreme Court stated in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District that students did not lose their First Amendment rights while at school, if they were not disruptive. Because of that ruling, lower courts upheld student press freedom in a number of cases. Research conducted in the decade following the Tinker decision, however, found that the decision had not led to much of an increase in student press freedom.(3)While supporters of the scholastic press expected an increase in prior restraint to take place because of the Hazelwood ruling, researchers conducting surveys in three states shortly after the ruling concluded that few advisers or principals anticipated changes in their publications.(4) Several national studies of principals and advisers in the early years of the Hazelwood era seemed to confirm that the ruling had little impact on scholastic press freedom.(5)In the one reported study that included opinions of students, Crow found that Texas high school principals and student editors were in substantial agreement concerning the extent of prior restraint that had occurred at the school. Principals' and editors' responses to opinion questions about press freedom, however, were significantly different.(6)While research following the Hazelwood ruling called into question basic assumptions about the extent to which student press freedom existed, researchers' findings also were challenged. The Student Press Law Center, for example, reported that the number of requests for its assistance increased 143 percent from 1988 through 1992. It stated that "[m]uch of the increase is believed to be the result of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1988 decision in Hazelwood School District v. …
Linear Programming in the Allocation of Milk Resources for Cheese Making
Abstract To use linear programming, the cheese making process can be modeled as a resource conversion process. The relationship between input milk resources and output products can be analyzed using mass balance assumptions. The variables used in the linear programming model will represent the pounds of each milk resource chosen to formulate a vat of cheese milk. Additional variables will be used to represent the pounds of cream to be removed from a milk resource that has the potential to have cream removed. Three objectives that could be considered are 1) maximize net returns, 2) maximize cheese yield, or 3) minimize cost. A hypothetical example is used to illustrate how the cheese making process can be modeled. This linear programming model depends on formulas that relate ratio of casein to fat of milk to the fat on the dry basis of the cheese. Sensitivity analysis is performed to determine at what cost a milk resource not in the optimal formulation will replace a milk resource currently in the optimal formulation. The linear programming model can be an effective management tool in the allocation of milk resources for cheese making.