The importance of context — and reserve — in dealing with controversy

A few weeks ago, I discussed the lessons of a controversy at Glenbrook South High School in terms of free speech. It turns out the flap over a student’s comments in the school’s yearbook has several dimensions that make an already fraught debate even more complex.

Questions of the limits of free speech still lie at the heart of the issue, but they are tempered by the need to know just what one is freely speaking about.

The root of the controversy is an item in the yearbook that includes an quote suggesting a student was “happy” to hear about the terrorism of Oct. 7, 2023. Publication of the quote ignited a firestorm of outrage, and led the Glenbrook High School District 225 school board to order an investigation by its attorney, Justino D. Petrarca.

On Tuesday, the district published on its website Petrarca’s report on his findings. His primary themes: The student’s remarks were presented out of context and made it into print in violation of the yearbook’s and the school district’s principles on ethics and sensitivity as a result of supervision that was both insufficient and naive.

There’s a lot to unpack in the report. When it next meets on July 8, the Dist. 225 school board will no doubt begin that difficult process as it applies to operational policies and the school district. But outside the district’s parochial interests, there are also important takeaways for news media at large and for everyone who reads, hears, watches or streams reports on news events.

Central to Petrarca’s report is the notion that the remarks from the quoted student, whom he identifies as “Student 3,” were presented as if they applied to the atrocities of Oct. 7, when instead, “A fair reading of the quote was that it related to her perception of the 75-year history of conflict, and especially the events related to a 2020 bombing of Palestinians during Ramadan.”

In other words, context matters. And, of course, it does. Student journalists may have wanted to present competing points of view on a subject of interest to their class in 2023-24, but a lack of precision led to presentation that was misleading and provocative. It’s an error of both judgment and lack of rigor, but it is not limited to the work of student journalists. Professional media can also be susceptible to it, and, frankly, social media pundits and partisans of all types are often only too happy to employ it if it helps make a point better than complete accuracy would.

Petrarca goes to some lengths to emphasize that the events of Oct. 7 were not the premise of the yearbook editors’ original assignment for a reporter to interview Student 3, the interview itself or the reporter’s submission of the results. On the surface, this seems to suggest that the protests following the yearbook publication were, if not misplaced, at least disproportionate. And perhaps there is a lesson there, too, for all of us as news consumers. Before we take to the pitchforks and torches, we’re wise to consider the source of our ire and the need to be sure of its validity.

Whatever the context of the published comments that drew the most outrage, it is also important to emphasize, as is clear from Petrarca’s report, that the controversy overlooks a key message Student 3 was trying to convey. In the full recording of her interview, Student 3 “implored people to be open-minded and aware of the conflict and get educated about it,” the report states. What reasonable person would not agree with that sentiment? And it is included in the yearbook presentation, but is overwhelmed by the strong reaction to what people found offensive.

Thus, an important conversation has been derailed.

No doubt, this situation, which has drawn international attention, will lead to further discussions about supervision of student journalists, freedom of expression for students and more. All that will be important. But I also find myself returning to a phrase from my previous column, when I and most of the rest of the world thought the student’s words were a reflection on Oct. 7. In such cases, I wrote, “we find ourselves practically willing to come to blows over emotional phrases and sensational words instead of working toward viable solutions …”

The imposition of a new layer of context does not invalidate that observation. To my mind, it only reinforces it.

• Jim Slusher, jslusher@dailyherald.com, is managing editor for opinion at the Daily Herald. Follow him on Facebook at www.facebook.com/jim.slusher1 and on X at @JimSlusher.