The Student Press Law Center asked New Voices advocates to reflect on their accomplishments and lessons learned during the 2024 legislative season. Other posts in this series can be found here.
Matthew Smith is president of the Wisconsin Journalism Education Association and adviser for the Cardinal Columns at Fond du Lac High School. He has long advocated for student press rights and New Voices in Wisconsin.
Heading into the winter break at the end of 2023, it certainly looked like Wisconsin might be the next state to pass New Voices legislation protecting student journalists. In November, the full Wisconsin State Assembly passed the bill unanimously (98-0), and on December 5 a Senate committee held a largely favorable public hearing. Legislators had some logistical questions but voiced near unanimous support for supporting First Amendment rights of students, and students, adults and organizations were sharing strong personal experiences and explanations in favor of the legislation. The governor was even on record supporting the bill as written.
This was the point I had thought we might never get to in Wisconsin, but honestly, it was also a moment I feared. It was clear that the bill, if moved forward by the committee, would pass the full Senate and then be signed by the governor. This was the last chance for any forces opposed to the bill to stop the momentum, and since the Wisconsin Legislature’s two-year session was set to end in March, a delay of just a few months could easily kill the entire movement.
Alas, that is exactly what happened. The Senate committee eased into the winter break without any action, and then, near the end of January, proposed amendments that would require signed parent permission forms for students to participate in any class or extracurricular student journalism programs. They also made some other wording adjustments that would require re-approval by the Assembly. There was not nearly enough time to work through the hardships that permission forms would introduce or to address some concerns coming from the state university system, which it became clear did not think the legislation was necessary. Thus, the session ended with no additional action, and any movement on this legislation will need to start over at the start of the next session.
The experience leaves me frustrated but also fairly hopeful, with a few important takeaways for future attempts.
First, having students in the lead is the biggest cheat code. Our effort in Wisconsin was spearheaded by high school junior Simon Mehring, with support from the Student Press Law Center. Legislators clearly immediately connected with Simon and his combination of passion and competence. It is easy (maybe even satisfying) to say “no” to professional adults. The opposite is true when it comes to articulate teenagers. I saw a similar reaction to several students from Wauwatosa West High School who spoke at one of the public hearings. The legislators were much more engaged with these teenagers (and sought out photos with them afterward) than they were with any adults who spoke. Hearing students speak up for themselves and take an interest in working within the system is not only motivating to us as educators and journalism supporters but also intoxicating to government leaders. I’m sure New Voices bills can be passed without significant student leadership, but the student voices sure helped get it to the front of the line.
Second, having both high school and university students involved can be crucial. The movement in Wisconsin came largely from the high school level, and college journalists never really had a chance to get involved. The only organization that spoke openly against the legislation was the University of Wisconsin System. Their spokesman regularly claimed that New Voices was not needed at the college level, since their policies already put students in charge of student publications. Publicly, no college students shared any views on this (although several college journalists told me privately that the system was not nearly as supportive as it claimed). Largely this was a result of the fact that the bill came almost out of nowhere and moved so quickly at the end of the session. Any future movement should make sure university students are on board for messaging early on.
Third, keep wording as simple as possible. Legislators who are unsure what position to take on a bill will allow themselves to be as confused as we let them be. Part of what I think bogged down the Wisconsin bill after quick early progress was the continual addition of minor amendments meant to clarify wording about particular circumstances. What students get to decide what is printed? What about private schools? What can advisers do or not do? Should universities be treated differently? What about school districts that already have supportive policies? The earlier these sorts of questions can be addressed either in the legislative wording or just in the supportive messaging, the harder it may be for legislators to begin inserting new sections attempting to address them (while also introducing new complexities that require yet more language to “fix”). Many New Voices laws that exist in other states already have fairly clean language that works — reflected in the SPLC model bill — and these versions should be pushed as heavily as possible. New, more creative wording leads to more questions, and the more in-the-weeds these committees get, the more confused people seem to get about what the bill is for.
Lastly, and related to the previous point, public opinion is on our side. No one in any public hearing or private email or discussion with me, including legislators, aides, students, teachers, school board members and more, ever voiced disagreement with the concept that students in public schools should not have school officials telling them what to publish. First Amendment support is very strong right now. The quibbles came over what, exactly, the process for publication should be or what happens if lawsuits do occur. In some cases, this is because most legislators honestly don’t know how student journalism and media law works. In others cases, it’s clear that this is just the only ground left to quibble about for those actually opposed to such rights. It is no longer acceptable to publicly support schools silencing student voices, and we need to find a way to use that.
Things are always changing, but my goal would be to take these insights into consideration at the start of the next legislative session. Being on the side that is “right” and “popular” is not enough. Keeping the message simple and consistent and involving students as leaders in the movement is needed to keep it moving when the natural stance of most government institutions is to do nothing.
Learn more about New Voices here.