Opinion ID: 197368
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Yeo's Submission of Advertisements

Text: In 1992, the Lexington School Committee adopted a policy making condoms available to students at LHS without parental permission. This measure was the subject of political controversy in Lexington, and Douglas Yeo, a town resident and parent, emerged as a leading opponent of condom distribution and other safe sex policies. Yeo headed a group called Lexington Citizens for Responsible School Policy, which sponsored a non-binding town-wide referendum on the School Committee's condom policy. The Musket ran both news articles and editorials on the policy and the referendum. Yeo thought these articles misrepresented his group's position. In January 1993, Yeo requested a meeting with LHS Principal David Wilson concerning his grievance. Wilson suggested that Yeo submit a -8- letter to the editor correcting the alleged inaccuracies, but advised Yeo that any decisions regarding corrections would have to be made by the student editors. Yeo did not contact the student editors. In March 1993, the voters of Lexington approved the condom distribution policy. Subsequently, in May 1993, Yeo founded the Lexington Parents Information Network (LEXNET). LEXNET's stated goal was to distribute information about public education to parents via newsletters and meetings.
On November 1, 1993, Yeo, as Chairman of LEXNET, submitted a full page ad to the 1994 LHS Yearbook. The ad copy read: We know you can do it! ABSTINENCE: The Healthy Choice Sponsored by: Lexington Parents Information Network(LEXNET) Post Office Box 513, Lexington Massachusetts 02173. The ad was accompanied by a check for $200.00. Mechem, the Yearbook advisor, acknowledged receipt of the check and placed the ad in a drawer without giving it a second thought. In keeping with Yearbook procedures, the LEXNET ad was warehoused in a drawer with other ads pending submission to the publisher for the printing of proofs. Natalie Berger, a senior and co-editor-in-chief, noticed the ad in the drawer and felt that the ad was out of context with the advertising section of the Yearbook. However, she -9- decided to postpone a publication decision until she saw the ad in proof form, which was typically when critical editorial decisions were made. In January 1994, a large number of proofs, including those of Yeo's ad, came back from the printer. All the student editors attended an editorial meeting at which they looked over the various ads and copy. After much discussion, the editors decided that Yeo's ad was a political advocacy statement that was out of context with the rest of the Yearbook and that had no place in that publication. Although the students decided to reject the ad as drafted, they still wished to include a message from LEXNET if the ad could be rewritten to conform with the rest of the Yearbook. The students did not consult with Mechem or any other member of the faculty or administration prior to making this decision. The Yearbook editors asked Mechem to notify Yeo of their decision. The students also asked Mechem to convey their request that Yeo's ad be revised to express a congratulatory graduation message. On February 1, 1994, Mechem called Yeo, and told him that the students would like to have the ad rewritten. Yeo refused to revise the ad and threatened to sue the Yearbook unless his ad was published as submitted. -10- The student editors discussed the issue again, and decided to stand by their original decision to reject Yeo's ad. They asked Mechem to write to Yeo, returning his check. On February 4, Mechem wrote to Yeo: Because of the non-controversial nature of the advertising section of the yearbook, we have decided not to print the advertising you have submitted. Please accept my apologies for the inconvenience that our reviewing procedure may have caused. A $200 check was enclosed. Mechem told Principal Wilson about Yeo's ad and the students' decision to reject it. Yeo replied by fax on February 13, 1994, writing: Based on our understanding of the right of equal access and free speech, we do not accept your rejection of our ad and ask that you reconsider your decision to censor it. We will not be cashing your check at this time. Should you not reverse your decision, we will avail ourselves of every possible avenue open to us in order to protect our rights as advertisers.
On January 3, 1994, Yeo wrote to Dong Shen, a senior and the business manager of the Musket, requesting information about advertising procedures and rates. The letter was not on LEXNET stationary and did not identify Yeo as a member of that group. Receiving no reply, Yeo wrote to Shen again on January 20, requesting the information as soon -11- as possible, and copying Ivan Chan, the editor-in-chief, on the letter. On January 25, Shen wrote to Yeo, providing the requested information and taking full personal responsibility for the delayed response. Shen concluded by noting, Of course ads are still subject to the approval of the editorial board. On February 1, 1994, Yeo submitted an ad to the Musket. The text was identical to the Yearbook ad previously submitted, except that, above LEXNET's address, it contained the line: For accurate information on abstinence, safer sex and condoms, contact:[LEXNET]. The student editors of the Musket discussed the ad extensively. In mid-February, they met and decided that Yeo's ad constituted a political statement that they would not run as a matter of policy. On February 24, 1994, Shen wrote to Yeo: After careful consideration of your advertisement from LEXNET, the Musket came to the difficult decision of not printing it. In no way did we want to limit your right to express your opinion, but we could not accept a political statement as an advertisement. Our own advertisement policy dictates so for good reasons. If we were to accept a politically aligned advertisement, we at the Musket would feel obligated to accept other political statements that might come our way. We do not wish to put ourselves in such position. Ultimately Ad space is not a public forum and for -12- that reason the Musket reserves the right to select what Advertisements it chooses to print. If you have any question feel free to contact the Musket. The decision was made, and the reply written, by the student editors without consulting Kafrissen, the Musket faculty advisor, or requesting his, or any other adult's, approval. In fact, Kafrissen did not even know about the ad's submission until the time of the editorial meeting, and did not see the ad or the students' response until after the reply had been sent. Sometime the next week, Principal Wilson called Kafrissen and informed him that Lexington's Town Counsel, Norman Cohen, had been contacted by Yeo's lawyer; the lawyer had threatened to sue the town and the school authorities if the ad was not run. Cohen thought that it would be best to avoid a lawsuit and requested that the students publish Yeo's ad. Kafrissen and Wilson agreed to look into the legal issues in greater depth and to discuss the matter with the students. On March 1, 1994, the student editors of the Musket met with Kafrissen. Kafrissen informed them of Yeo's actions. Although a number of students at the March 1 meeting supported Yeo's pro-abstinence views, they were concerned that the Musket might turn into a bulletin board for advocacy on lifestyle issues. Additionally, the students were uncomfortable with having to run an ad because someone -13- had threatened to sue them if they did not. The editors once again decided to reject the ad. They asked Kafrissen to contact Yeo and to invite him to present his views in a letter to the editor. Kafrissen, on behalf of the Musket, wrote to Yeo that day. In the letter, Kafrissen suggested that Yeo write a letter to the editor: We have long considered the Letters to the Editor section of the Musket to be a public forum. Historically we have accepted and printed on these pages any and all short and tasteful letters that have come to us. We would welcome such a letter from your organization in which you would probably be able to explicate your position on abstinence more fully than you would be able to in an ad format. We have heard that you feel that school publications have prevented you from presenting your message to the student body. Therefore we suggest that you use the medium of a letter to get your message across in greater detail, and without charge. The letter concluded by noting that, if Yeo were successful in forcing the Musket to print the ad, this would have the negative consequence of removing editorial control from the student staff. Yeo declined the offer on March 7 in a letter to Kafrissen. In that letter, Yeo explained that his organization decided to sponsor the ads for two reasons: Firstly, we had a simple message we wanted to get out that would affirm abstinent students in the LHS community. -14- . . . There is nothing controversial or political in our message. Secondly, I wanted to see if the Musket and Yearbook would react as I thought they would. They did. In spades. Accordingly, Yeo declined to write a letter to the editor, which, he felt, could not make the point as concisely as an ad could. Yeo insisted that the ad be run as submitted, as is our legal right, and concluded, You don't have to agree with it. You don't even have to like it. You just have to print it. Touch . C. The Administration's Response and the Students' Decisions On March 1, Yeo met with Principal Wilson to discuss the ads. Yeo believes that, at that meeting, Wilson assured him that the ads would be printed, and told him that the Town Attorney had advised publication. Meanwhile, as the controversy heightened, the students and faculty alike were seeking advice from various sources. Mechem told Wilson that Dow-Chung Chi, the Yearbook's co-editor-in-chief, had asked her: If we don't print the ad, what law are we breaking? In an attempt to answer his question, Mechem talked with Wilson, Kafrissen, and the Student Press Law Center in Washington, D.C. Several of the student editors of the Musket and the Yearbook sought advice from the Student Press Law Center and the Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, as well as from attorneys they knew personally. The students were told by these -15- various sources that, under the federal Constitution and Massachusetts law, student editors had the right to decide what was printed in their publications. On March 11, 1994, LHS officials and student editors met in the office of the Superintendent of Schools, Jeffrey Young. Yearbook editors-in-chief Berger and Chi, Musket editor-in-chief Chan, advisors Kafrissen and Mechem, Superintendent Young and Principal Wilson attended. Young asked questions to determine what the students' reasoning was, and to determine that they had engaged in a thoughtful process prior to the meeting. The administrators and faculty were impressed with the way the students outlined the issues. Young concluded by stating that he would like to do further research and to obtain legal advice. In mid-March, Musket editor-in-chief Chan was approached by a group of students who were offended by Yeo's efforts and who wished to place a counter ad in the Musket. The proposed ad looked exactly like Yeo's ad except that, in place of Abstinence: The Healthy Choice, it read Safe Sex: The Healthy Choice. Chan decided to reject the counter-ad, and informed the staff that it would not be published. On March 13, Chan called a meeting of the entire Musket staff; Kafrissen was not invited and did not attend. At that meeting, Chan briefed the students on the events -16- surrounding the submission of Yeo's ad. The student staff unanimously opposed publication of Yeo's ad. On March 18, a second meeting was held in Superintendent Young's office. In addition to the prior participants, Lexington School Committee members attended. (LHS Assistant Principal Lawrence Robinson attended in Principal Wilson's stead). The Musket and Yearbook editors reiterated their refusal to run Yeo's ads. The school officials and School Committee members warned the students of the possible consequences of their decision, including litigation, and described the potentially unpleasant media exposure the students could expect. Although the students felt that the school officials wanted them to print the ads, the officials maintained that it was the students' decision to make. The students were repeatedly advised that the ultimate decision about publication of the advertisement was theirs to make and the school administration would stand by their decision. Following the March 18th meeting, Chan held several further discussions with individuals and groups from the Musket's staff. Finally, with the staff's support, Chan conclusively decided not to run Yeo's ad as a matter of policy. On April 11, 1994, the Superintendent again met with the Musket staff and again told them the decision was -17- theirs. Throughout Young's tenure as Superintendent, the Musket has been operated as an independent student-run newspaper and he has never authorized any school official to interfere with the students' decision on what to publish. Yeo offers no evidence to the contrary. As for the Yearbook, Chi and Berger asked Mechem to invite Yeo, on the students' behalf, to a meeting at which alternatives could be discussed. Yeo wrote to Mechem on March 28, informing her that, on the advice of counsel, he would not be able to meet with the student editors, and requesting that all further inquiries be addressed to his lawyer at the Rutherford Institute in Virginia. Berger then called a meeting of all the Yearbook section editors. Mechem attended the beginning of the meeting and urged the students to consider the school officials' advice. Mechem then left the meeting. The students discussed the issues raised at the March 18 meeting. The students reaffirmed their decision to reject Yeo's ad. Chi and Berger then drafted a memo to Superintendent Young and the School Committee. It concluded: After much discussion and deliberation, the reasons for our decision are as follows. The nature of the advertisement, which promotes a style of life, regardless of the message, does not coincide with that of the rest of the advertisement section of the yearbook. The inclusion of this type of advertisement would also establish an -18- unsuitable precedent for the future of the yearbook. This litigation followed. During the 1994-95 school year, the new student editors of the Yearbook decided not to accept any advertisements other than personal notes from parents and students. Yeo resubmitted his ad in September 1994, but it was rejected under the new policy. The 1994-95 Musket staff drafted explicit Advertisement Policies and Procedures, to be distributed with advertisement forms, which states the type of advertisements, including those from political organizations, referendum issues, advocacy groups, [and] public service organizations,that the Musket will not print. The newspaper in its news pages gave extensive coverage to the controversy between it and Yeo, thus providing Yeo with coverage of his pro-abstinence position.