At the top of the student's artwork the caption reads:
"War is no game."
In Becky Brenner's art class at Franklin High School, no subject matter is off limits. Students pursue their own truth through their art, and this student chose the war in Iraq as the focus of her piece.
In the bottom left corner bodies are strewn about while fires burn, billowing smoke; the caption is written in the smoke.
The piece is not overtly grotesque but because of new standards, under the guidance of Principal Jennifer Wiley, in her first year at the South Seattle school, it is not displayed in the showcase in front of the art room.
"The whole issue of the war, I'm not sure, I think she just felt it was an inappropriate topic," Brenner said. "It was not just things against the war, it was anything about the war should not be up on the walls."
A new direction after years of instability
Wiley was hired to change the direction at Franklin, which has seen five principals in six years and suffered the public embarrassment of accusations of widespread grade changing.
When junior Per Junkerman created a drawing of a woman with her back turned and a man smiling in the foreground, Brenner said Wiley told her it must be taken down.
"She felt it objectified women, and was offensive," Brenner said.
Junkerman did not consider the piece his best work, but was pleased it could be a catalyst to discussions of censorship within public schools.
"As the principal you have to put a limit on things, but I'm glad it was brought up as an issue to talk about," Junkerman said, "She went a little far in taking it out [of the showcase], considering a normal day at Franklin more than a picture like that is going to go down."
Balancing 'order' and 'expresssion'
Wiley has stood fast on her regulation of the showcase as part of the visual landscape at Franklin. According to school district general counsel Mark Green, it is the principal's place to do so.
"A public school is not the same as Red Square," Green said, differentiating between Franklin and the University of Washington's public forum. "Principals are expected to preserve order and whether the speech being limited is substantially disruptive, that is decided on a case-by-case basis."
These restrictions were not limited to the art department, however.
A musical production by the F.A.M.E. company, the Franklin drama program run by Mary Smith for the past 19 years, cancelled a performance in part because of an objection by Wiley about some of the content of the script.
Smith said of the relationship between the F.A.M.E. company and the new principal: "It is the first time I have had to run a script by the principal that I can remember."
Several attempts to interview Principal Wiley for this story were unsuccessful.
In addition to removing controversial items in the art and drama departments, Wiley has the last word about editorial content for the Franklin Tolo, a student publication. Tolo student staff members have said they have avoided controversial topics in light of Wiley's actions thus far. (Full disclosure: This reporter is a member of Franklin's class of 1999 and volunteers at the Franklin student newspaper.)
A 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, gave public school officials greater censorship authority as long as the publication in question was not "a public forum for student expression." Officials are also responsible for demonstrating "reasonable educational justification" when restricting material.
Green says Seattle Public Schools have "enough decentralized administration" that the only objection to the principal's restrictions would be a lawsuit, leaving a court to decide if the material was substantially disruptive.
A school district attorney, Brenda Little, spoke in the Franklin auditorium about the authority granted to the principal.
"The main thing she said was she would get back to us with a written opinion, and that still has not happened," Brenner, the art teacher, said of the meeting. "The artwork still has not gone up."
An 'actual disruption'?
A written opinion has not been sent to the faculty at Franklin and months have passed since the statement made by Little. This has not been well received by teachers, who would like to know the rules so they can abide by them.
Little came to Franklin to establish whether the material being suppressed constituted an "actual disruption." She said during a telephone interview last week that the principal must provide facts to prove this disruption.
"I did not receive any facts about the posters to prove this work caused a substantial disruption," Little said. "The posters did not cause kids to not go to class, they didn't cause fights and did not disrupt."
Little said she believed Wiley made her decision based on the grounds the artwork was "lewd, profane or of sexualized content." Little said she sent a memo to Wiley, which she said she could not discuss without violating the attorney-client privilege. But she said she did feel this was the written statement faculty has been waiting on for the clarification of guidelines.
"I figured Ms. Wiley would summarize the information contained in the document to students and faculty," Little said after being informed of the faculty members' concerns.
Where to draw the line?
"Does this ruling mean kids can't write essays in social studies about the war?" Brenner wondered. "Where does it end then? People in the building saw [Little's presentation] and wondered, what can we teach in our class? What kind of discussions can we have? What can I put up as far as student's work in the room?"
Faculty and students have been especially outspoken against restricting speech that relates to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
"The issue of the war is all over the place right now," Brenner said. "How can you possibly tell kids they can't express themselves artistically about the situation? If you can't talk about it in school, where can you talk about it? This should be a marketplace of ideas."
Brenner would rather the controversial material be used to further dialogue.
"I suggested if there was a piece in the future that was controversial, whomever is offended can write up why, and we'll put it in the showcase right next to the artwork," Brenner said. "We can include an opposing view on the other side. Then that would be a teachable way to handle controversial issues, because if you just cover it up people don't learn from it. When you forbid something you stifle the discussion."
Matthew Chernicoff is a student in the University of Washington School of Communications News Laboratory.
[[In-content Ad]]
