Student column advocates death for “intellectually handicapped;” Atlanta paper defends press freedom
October 23rd, 2007Satire cited
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution defends editorial freedom in a high school censorship dispute at Georgia’s East Coweta High School.
East Coweta’s principal recently impounded copies of the student newspaper after receiving complaints about a column arguing that low-performing students and those with intellectual disabilities should be executed by lethal injection.
The item by senior Justin Jones was patterned on the satirical essay ‘A Modest Proposal’ by Jonathan Swift. Editors at the Journal-Constitution reprinted Jones’ column on their op-ed page; in the tradition of Swift, it was not labeled ’satire.’
From Jones’ column, ‘Another modest proposal’:
The intellectually handicapped have been reproducing at a substantially greater rate than those with a fully functional brain. The problem of the unintelligent reproducing is, and has been, a serious threat to society that has gone unchecked for far too long. It is the responsibility of man to solve this problem before a reverse Darwinism takes effect.
… the government should compile a standardized test to thoroughly analyze any and all 5th grade students in the country for IQ levels. Based on the results of the test, those who perform in the bottom 25 percent should be executed. The executions will not be inhumane; simple lethal injections while one sleeps would be sufficient. With the bottom of every class systematically removed, over time the world would inevitably thrive and prosper like never before.
It is true that, without the unintelligent, there will be no one to mess up one’s order at the local fast food joint, or people on the news to give one something humorous to talk about at the water cooler at work the next morning, but that is a sacrifice, as a race, that simply must be made.
From the AJC editorial, ‘A principal’s immodest response’:
If students knew enough about Irish-born satirist Jonathan Swift to parody him, it would be cause for celebration in most area high schools. Instead, it led to censorship at East Coweta High
… It [takes courage] to challenge the status quo, and that’s what good school newspapers should do. While the U.S. Supreme Court granted school administrators the right to censor some student publications, it stipulated that officials show reasonable educational justification. The justification at East Coweta seems neither reasonable nor educational.
The newspaper’s managing editor and faculty adviser have resigned in the wake of the dispute, and an editorial advisory board has been appointed. See related information from the (Newnan, Georgia) Times-Herald and the Student Press Law Center.
Comments, anyone?
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007 at 9:46 am and is filed under NOT2BEMISSED, eugenics, euthanasia, intellectual/developmental disabilities, media, public attitudes.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Email This Post
Our RSS Feed
October 25th, 2007 at 12:16 am
The best thing would have been for the principal to behave like an educator and to have replied in the next issue of the paper demonstrating the flaws in the subject argument. Only by confronting these prejudices and fears can progress be made in educating people. So - banning it, no matter how ‘offensive,’ was utterly self-defeating.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
It is sad to see the Atlanta Journal-Constitution support the dissemination of hate speech within an educational institution. The principal, in my view, did exactly the right thing confiscating copies of the school newspaper. He was clearly considering the impact such an article would have on the entire school community including the less academically oriented students singled out for ridicule by their self-described “intelligent” peer. The principal’s actions certainly appear to meet the Supreme Court’s standard of “reasonable educational justification”.
Our schools have the opportunity and the responsibility to teach so much more than traditional academic subjects. Let’s not get in their way as they promote standards of respect and decency. All students deserve this.
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:21 pm
The problem with the piece is that it is BAD satire, BAD Swift. I say this as a literature professor.
Swift’s famous piece exposes, through its carefully crafted hyperbole, the callous indifference of those in charge to the predicament of the poor and hungry. This student piece doesn’t really have a stable target, one easily discerned by the vast majority of readers despite its “serious” presentation. It’s simply practicing being provocative and at times even seems to agree with some of its outlandish assertions.
I’d sidestep the free speech debate by confiscating the paper on aesthetic/rhetorical grounds. You have to be very careful with satire in a climate where the cognitively disabled are regularly mistreated — and historically have been brutalized.
Imagine, though, if the writer had responded, say, to the “pillow angel” controversy with more controlled and directed hyperbole; in that case an immodest proposal might really have done some rhetorical good.
Remember that satire is used to re-establish a moral norm in the face of farcical “common sense’ (the “common sense” of removing a disabled girl’s womb).
Ralph Savarese