Hindsight is 20-20, of course, but it can also inform the future

So, how should the Regis Jesuit magazine leadership, the administration, and the archdiocese have worked to find that "sweet spot" that supports strong thinking and writing, balances varying defensible views, and maintains strong ties between educators and students?

As H.L. Mencken once wrote, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." This is the sort of statement that should be placed on a large poster and displayed in every journalism classroom -- or maybe just every classroom.

If you are looking for some sort of "quick fix," or easy recipe, or even the ONE action to take, you are bound for disappointment. But here are some ideas.

First, there needs to be an ongoing conversation among writers, editors, and advisers about what we publish. Someone needs to constantly be asking key questions, such as, "Why would readers be interested in this right now?" and "What reactions are you hoping for/expecting?" and "Who are the key audiences going to be for this?"

There needs to be an editing process or some sort, moving any article from raw ideas to gathering of information to rough draft to publishable draft, and rushing that process is not a good idea.

There will never be a perfect piece of writing but we can create structures within the staff to avoid major foul ups and incomplete reports or opinions.

On the administration side, the Regis Jesuit principal could have looked for something more targeted, like simply withdrawing the commentary that caused the problems. Removing the entire issue seems like too broad a stroke. Better yet, if the principal simply sat with the editors and suggested that THEY remove the article until it was in better shape, or at least made clear the pressures from the community, THAT could build relationships and demonstrate the sort of conversations valued by the school.

The archdiocese really should have kept out of the controversy, demonstrating a confidence in the official church position as well as in those hired to guide students in their education. It is possible, of course, that there would have been no controversy without the archbishop's angry reaction.

One "solution" to problems with the student media is to simply do away with student media, and Regis certainly has that power. In fact, public schools have that power, as well. There are lots of instances of principals simply deleting journalism courses, reassigning advisers, discovering that the budget can't handle publishing expenses, etc.

That might be considered the nuclear option and most adults would prefer to at least appear to support student expression... as long as that expression is not threatening or confrontational. 

My advice to advisers and staffs is to do everything possible to make certain that the reporting and writing is strong and defensible. Strong thinking and writing provides its own protection against those who would prefer to hide what students are thinking and worried about and simply interested in.

Wouldn't it be great if the wider church, the school leadership, the advisers, and the student journalists all felt like they were on the same side, working through various opinions and options?

It's too late now for much in the way of compromise or better procedures, but out of such debacles may grow stronger policies and more understanding of differing views.

Here's to hoping that the Regis community can eventually move in that direction.