Protest at SLO High after anti-gay letter published in school newspaper
I find Michael Stack’s view and comments repugnant at best and lacking in judgment to say the least. I also agree that his comments may have crippled his ability to be an effective classroom teacher going forward.
Nevertheless, the reasoning in The Tribune’s editorial (“Religious proselytizing forbidden in the classroom, but not in the school newspaper?,” May 13) seems muddled.
If a newspaper, student-run or otherwise, is not a platform for free speech, repugnant or not, then what is? The argument that state is co-opted by church, in this case, seems a rather flimsy stretch. If the goal is to educate future journalists, then what have they learned? That vocal outrage, even if we agree with it, suppresses free constitutionally sanctioned expression? That seems a far more dangerous message for young people to hear than the one contained in Mr. Stack’s religious views.
It’s a tough issue, and there are clearly limits to acceptable free speech, but I truly think The Tribune got this one wrong.
Michael Zigelman, Arroyo Grande