MENU

We’re with her: The Bear Truth Editorial Board Endorses Hillary Clinton for president

Hillary+Clinton+speaks+to+supporters+at+a+Denver%2C+Colorado+rally+on+Aug.+3.+
Hillary Clinton speaks to supporters at a Denver, Colorado rally on Aug. 3.

Hillary Clinton speaks to supporters at a Denver, Colorado rally on Aug. 3.

Photo by Evan Ochsner

Photo by Evan Ochsner

Hillary Clinton speaks to supporters at a Denver, Colorado rally on Aug. 3.

Editorial Board

When Americans go to the polls on November 8 to vote for president, there will be only one responsible choice on the ballot. One candidate has a lifelong devotion to public service, and the other completely lacks the experience and temperament to be president. For this reason, The Bear Truth Editorial Board endorses Hillary Clinton.
The appeal of Donald Trump is real. Most Americans feel that the American government is broken, and rightly so. Trump supporters are attracted to him because of his outsider status and success as a business man. On the other hand, Ms. Clinton is the definition of the establishment. A career politician, Ms. Clinton is the embodiment of everything that many Americans were hoping to avoid in this election. However, there is no reasonable alternative to Ms. Clinton, and her lifelong dedication to public service is why she is the only viable choice for president.
As first lady, Ms. Clinton had an active role in public policy. She was the first First Lady to have her own office in the West Wing of the White House. Her now famous 1995 speech in which she claimed that “Human rights are women’s rights and, women’s rights are human rights,” is indicative of her general policy toward women. She has made it a trademark of her campaign to fight for equal pay for equal work, and has promised to guarantee up to 12 weeks of paid family leave. Eight million children have health insurance thanks to the work she did as First Lady.
In contrast, her opponent has consistently made sexist and demeaning comments about women. He has called women “pigs,” and spent a lifetime objectifying them and reducing them to their appearance. He has repeatedly justified these comments by raising questions about his victim’s past and suggesting that somehow his words are justified. His comments after a primary debate about moderator Megyn Kelly in which he stated that she had “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever,” are absolutely despicable and are inappropriate for any person to make, let alone a presidential candidate.
Mr. Trump’s comments from 2005 that surfaced last week are worst of all. His vivid and disgusting depiction of his personal sexual assaults of women are inexcusable. His dismissal of these comments as “locker room banter,” is incorrect; what Mr. Trump is describing is sexual assault.
As a senator, Ms. Clinton was lauded by members of both parties for her ability to work across the aisle. As the first woman to serve as a Senator from New York, she played a key role in securing $20 billion to provide health care for first responders. She also worked with Republicans to expand TRICARE so that members of the National Guard and the Reserves had better access to healthcare.
As Secretary of State, she continued to fight for equal rights across the globe. She worked to ensure equal economic opportunity for women, and combated sexual violence across the globe. She brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, fought the AIDS epidemic abroad, and expanded US relationships in Asia.
When it comes to foreign policy and Hillary Clinton, the biggest talking point is Benghazi. Benghazi was a tragic mistake. Period. It’s not nearly enough to disqualify Ms. Clinton from being president. It is important to keep perspective when discussing the four deaths at Benghazi. According to Politifact, under the Bush administration, there were 39 attacks on U.S. consulates and consulate personnel that resulted in 87 deaths. However, you’d be hard pressed to find the kind of outrage that the Benghazi attack has brought about.
There are inherent risks that must be recognized when setting up consulates in foreign lands, especially in the Middle East. Unfortunately, it’s inevitable that tragedy strikes.
Continuing to blame Ms. Clinton personally for the tragedy in Benghazi is absurd. There have been eight formal congressional investigations on Benghazi. All eight have cleared Ms. Clinton of personal wrongdoing. Conservative leaders still try to pin the blame on Ms. Clinton, despite the fact that, according to Time Magazine, consular security doesn’t even make it to the level of the Secretary of State. Ms. Clinton claimed responsibility for the attack simply because that’s what good leaders do. Also according to Time Magazine, the Libyan operation was actually in conjunction with the CIA. Interestingly, no one has shown outrage at David Petraeus, the then head of the CIA.
Clinton has been endorsed by 84 former ambassadors and 15 current or former heads of state. On the other hand, Mr. Trump has been endorsed by just three former ambassadors and three current or former heads of state. Those who know foreign policy the best trust Ms. Clinton’s judgment and experience over Mr. Trump’s rhetoric and inexperience.
Despite Ms. Clinton’s long resume of policy, significant questions about her character remain. Among other things, she has misled the American people on multiple occasions, and her use of the Clinton Foundation has been suspect. However, Mr. Trump has run a campaign rooted in dishonesty. According to an analysis by Politico, during the week of September 19th, “Trump averaged about one falsehood every three minutes and 15 seconds over nearly five hours of remarks.”
Mr. Trump has abused his foundation funds on multiple occasions, and on one instance, spent $20,000 of charity money on a portrait of himself, as reported by the Washington Post.
His comments about people of Hispanic heritage are deplorable, and his suggestion that Judge Gonzalo Curiel was incapable of making an impartial ruling because of his Mexican heritage is, as House Speaker Paul Ryan put it, “Claiming a person can’t do the job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment.” (For the record, the Judge was born in Indiana). It’s no wonder why Mr. Trump has been endorsed by prominent white supremacists like David Duke.
A traditional editorial endorsement would warrant a discussion on the key differences between the policies of the two candidates. However, this is no traditional election, as Mr. Trump has spent his time on dividing Americans instead of discussing policy. According to NBC News, Mr. Trump’s website has just 9,000 words of policy proposal, while Ms. Clinton’s has 112,735 words of policy proposal.
In the first two presidential debates, Mr. Trump has failed to offer detailed specifics on his plans to defeat ISIS, and address the refugee crisis. He also threatened to jail Ms. Clinton if he won the presidency, the kind of rhetoric normally reserved for foreign despots. Mr. Trump’s tax plan is trickle down economics at its finest, directly benefiting the super wealthy while raising taxes on a significant portion of the middle class.
The times are too dire, and the stakes far too high to elect a racially divisive, politically inexperienced, demagogue like Donald Trump. As GOP strategist Steve Schmidt put it, “There is nobody who holds any position of responsibility who in private conversations views Donald Trump as equipped mentally, morally and intellectually to be the president of the United States.”

60 Comments

60 Responses to “We’re with her: The Bear Truth Editorial Board Endorses Hillary Clinton for president”

  1. Gordon Reichal on October 12th, 2016 1:22 pm

    Reading I am surprised to see credit for years of self-service missing from her resume’

    [Reply]

  2. Melinda Zark on October 12th, 2016 2:54 pm

    How odd that the Bear Truth Editorial Board claims you’re concerned about people wrongly blaming Hillary for Benghazi. You should have called Nakoula Basseley Nakoula – the Coptic Christian filmmaker whose life Hillary destroyed – before writing this. Hillary spent weeks lying and blaming the attack on an Nakoula. Poor Hillary, you say? She destroyed the life a private citizen who was exercising his First Amendment rights so she could cover for her party’s candidate during an election. Poor Hillary? Poor US.

    [Reply]

  3. Terry AND Kathy Sullivan on October 13th, 2016 3:10 am

    The graphic nature of this article would be great in the “National Enquirer”
    Kids will be kids and always will be the future of our country. I hope the designers of this article and the parents do the right thing.

    [Reply]

  4. Lorri Halenkamp on October 13th, 2016 8:08 am

    I am in complete shock when reading this article. This endorsement falls well beyond the limits of objectivity. Below is some basic research on what is allowed and what is not allowed within the law in a public school forum. I am not an attorney, however as a parent to two children at PR I am in complete and utter disgust at this blatant attempt to sway the minds of impressionable young voters. I will be calling the school and demanding a retraction and I urge all parents no matter where your political proclivities lie to do the same!

    Political Speech at School
    The more complicated issue concerns political speech at school. Common sense and case law dictate that public educators should be more cautious in expressing their own views when they are in an instructional setting or in the presence of students at school-sponsored activities. Teachers may discuss political issues and candidates in a nonpartisan manner in the classroom if that’s appropriate for the class and curriculum. They may not make unrelated campaign speeches in the classroom or otherwise take advantage of their position of authority over a captive audience to promote their own political views.
    The district’s or state’s ability to regulate employee speech while in school or at school-sponsored activities can be thought of as part of the district’s ability to control what goes on in the classroom. The U.S. Supreme Court in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (484 U.S. 260 [1988]) and cases that have followed that decision lay out the school district’s authority to regulate employee and student speech within the curriculum and classroom for “legitimate pedagogical reasons.” The legitimate pedagogical reason for curtailing employee speech is usually stated as a concern about disrupting the normal school process, appropriating district resources (time), or compromising the district’s ability to remain politically neutral if students believe the employee represents the views of the district. The bottom line is that the district or the state can regulate employee speech during school hours or at school-sponsored activities to protect their own interests in instruction and political neutrality.
    Protecting the School From Disruption
    Even where a teacher’s expression involves a matter of public concern, the employee may still be disciplined if the school district reasonably believes the speech would significantly undermine the teacher’s ability to perform his or her duties, disrupt the school’s normal operation, undermine supervisory authority, or destroy working relationships (Connick v. Meyers, 461 U.S. 138 [1983]). For example, a court upheld the dismissal of a teacher who wrote and circulated a letter to fellow teachers objecting to a delay in receiving summer pay and encouraging teachers to stage a sick-out during the week of final exams. The court ruled that any First Amendment interest inherent in the letter was outweighed by the employer’s interest in having teachers abide by reasonable policies adopted to control sick leave and maintain morale and effective operation of the schools (Stroman v. Colleton County School District, 981 F.2d 152 [4th Cir. 1992]).
    Appropriating Public Resources for Personal Expression
    Public employees may not use state resources to support their own political activity. School employees cannot use public funds or other resources such as district equipment or supplies to promote a political measure or candidate. For example, using the district’s printer to make fliers for a political candidate would be an inappropriate use of public resources even if the employee provided the paper.
    Similarly, campaigning during work time is an inappropriate use of district resources. But people are allowed to share their political opinions in casual conversations throughout the workday and may engage in politicking during the day when they’re not directly engaged in their work activities. A number of courts have held that school districts or the state may restrict gathering petition signatures or distributing political literature during instructional time, but they may not restrict such political speech during noninstructional times in nonstudent contact settings, such as during duty-free periods in faculty break rooms and lounges.

    Representing the District
    The school itself must maintain political neutrality. Thus teachers or administrators who are acting on behalf of the school must also maintain political neutrality. In Garcetti v. Ceballos (126 U.S. 1951 [2006]), the U.S. Supreme Court held that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they don’t have First Amendment protection. If teachers are speaking on behalf of the district, they must represent the district’s views. In the context of public education, teachers deliver the curriculum for a school district. Their speech within this curriculum is what they have been hired to do. As such, the district can control speech during the delivery of the curriculum.
    This was the thinking the court used in Mayer v. Monroe County School (474 F.3d 477 [7th Cir. 2007] cert. denied 552 U.S. 823 [2007]). Deborah Mayer was a probationary elementary teacher who wasn’t given an additional teaching contract. She believed the district made its decision because of her political expressions. During a classroom current events discussion she had expressed her political views on the military intervention in Iraq. The district had told her that she could teach about the controversy regarding the Iraq war, but she had to keep her personal opinions out of the discussion. The court supported the school district in finding that teacher speech within the classroom, as part of the curriculum, can be controlled by the school district.
    There is a difference of opinion about whether school employees can wear political buttons during instructional time or during school-sponsored activities. Speech through a button is not really the same as speech that is part of delivering the curriculum. Some districts have allowed this form of advocacy; others don’t. But where a ban has been challenged the rule restricting the speech has been upheld.
    In September 2008, the New York City School District enacted a regulation that prohibited teachers from wearing campaign buttons during the school day and at school-sponsored events. The policy stated: While on duty or in contact with students, all school personnel shall maintain a posture of complete neutrality with respect to all candidates. Accordingly, while on duty or in contact with students, school personnel may not wear buttons, pins, articles of clothing, or any other items advocating a candidate, candidates, slate of candidates, or political organization/committee. (Weingarten v. Bd. of Education [680 F.Supp. 2d 595 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)] at 597) The rationale for the regulation as explained by New York City School Chancellor Joel Klein:
    “[w]hen teachers wear political paraphernalia in schools, they may improperly influence children and impinge on the rights of students to learn in an environment free of partisan political influence…. Partisan political activity by staff in the presence of students… sends the message that the view expressed carries the support of the school system” (Id. at 598).
    The United Federation of Teachers filed suit to overturn this regulation; the court upheld the ban.
    Earlier in California, the San Diego school district prohibited teachers from wearing political campaign buttons at work during work hours regardless of whether it was during instructional time or during student noncontact times. The teachers’ union challenged the ban (California Teachers Association v. Governing Board of San Diego Unified School District [45 Cal. App. 4th 1383, 53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 474 (1996)]. The California Court of Appeals began with the Supreme Court’s notion in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (484 U.S. 260 [1988]) that schools have greater authority to regulate speech that the public could perceive as bearing the school’s imprimatur than they do when regulating personal expression. The California court concluded that public school teachers, at least when teaching, act with the imprimatur of the school district and the school or the state could restrict an employee’s political expression in the classroom (53 Cal.Rptr2d at 480).

    Teaching Political or Controversial Topics in Class
    Teachers face particular challenges when they are teaching about political or controversial topics in class. Those discussions require them to navigate the difficult line between providing information and advocating for a particular view. More important, teachers must ensure that they are delivering the curriculum without indoctrinating students with their own political beliefs.

    Diana Hess outlines the importance of teaching students how to participate in discussions of controversial issues as part of supporting students as they develop into active members of our participatory democracy. She studies the practice of teachers who are doing this well (and some not so well), and how their students experience and learn from the discussions (Hess, 2009). Her findings show that teachers need to create a classroom climate in which students are encouraged to form and support their own views and to engage thoughtfully and to respect opinions different from their own. Hess shows that some very effective high school teachers share their views and some do not (Hess, 2011). Teachers cannot let their own advocacy interfere with their obligation to teach students about political issues in a way that makes clear to students (and the community) that they are not trying to influence the content of their students’ views.

    Conclusion
    So, what do we have after all of this? Generally, a public employer can’t make employment decisions (either positive or negative) as a result of an employee’s exercise of the constitutionally protected right to free speech. This does not mean public educators are free to say or write anything anywhere they wish. Rather, the courts attempt to balance the rights of the educator against harm to the school. Public educators’ speech can’t disrupt the school, appropriate school resources, or appear to represent the opinion of the school. But clearly public educators can speak out publicly — during noninstructional time — on issues of public concern.

    Here’s my take on all of this: Public educators are in the best position to influence public policy about public education. Ignoring that opportunity is a mistake. Educators offer a professional view on the effect of proposed policies. Beware of and respect the parameters that you should work within but don’t allow those boundaries to censor you into silence. Every educator can both honor the law and make their views known to local school boards and state and national elected officials. The country and its children need to hear your voices in these important debates.

    [Reply]

    Gordon Reichal Reply:

    Impressive with clear research. Does anyone believe this is heard?

    [Reply]

    Lisa Brock Reply:

    Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough evaluation of the real issue with this article–the importance of the school maintaining political neutrality in order to avoid abuse of authority. I am fully in favor of students determining their own well-informed opinions and would have been very much in favor of companion articles discussing the views and platforms of each of the candidates–or even two opinion columns from two individual students, one endorsing each candidate. But the school paper collectively endorsing one candidate is not responsible journalism and is not appropriate for the school setting.

    Thank you for taking the time to inform these student journalists of their responsibilities as journalists, citizens, and representatives of their school.

    [Reply]

    Chris G Reply:

    Lorri,

    This is student speech, not teacher speech.

    You spent a good amount of time quoting topics regarding teachers and employees, but it seems completely off topic.

    [Reply]

    Bob Reply:

    That’s because it is completely off-topic.

    The student newspaper upset some parents fragile Republican feelings, and now they’re crying about it and throwing a tantrum.

    And a lot of them are trying to stifle our kid’s First Amendment rights.

    Sad! Very sad!

    [Reply]

    Bear Reply:

    Lorri,

    Functional literacy is not your forté, is it?

    [Reply]

    Lydia Reply:

    Seriously Lorri. Its incredible that these high school students have better literacy and critical thinking skills than an adult (eg. student opinion =/= teacher opinion)

    [Reply]

    Brandon Cox Reply:

    Oh the irony of this being free speech week.

    I feel bad for the “adults” attacking the authors and district for allowing students to experience journalism and publish an OP ED piece that seems well thought out. Most parents spend no time volunteering or participating in school activities. But rest assured they know whats best!

    How dare these young adults come up with their own conclusions rooted in fact based research? I may not agree with the conclusion…but thats what makes America ALREADY great.

    [Reply]

    Dr. Anthony Rivas Reply:

    This is case law regarding the district, teacher, staff, or school admin making a political stance. These students made the stance in an editorial piece, which is usually an opinion. These students have a right to make an opinion known, this is what we are raising them to do. If their opinions differ from us we have an opportunity for discussion, not calling for heads to roll. That is the antithesis of discourse. With so much vitriol in the world today, we should encourage our future generation in taking a stance, even if we don’t like it. As a PRHS parent of two teenagers, I applaud the Bear Truth taking a stance.

    [Reply]

    Erica Reply:

    Lorri,

    I find it appalling that you’ve taken the time to criticize the students’ right to free speech using an article directed toward teachers, and which you’ve edited to leave out the main point of the article, which reads as follows:

    “So many times, teachers, faculty, and public employees are hesitant to step forward and speak out on issues — political issues, election debates, candidate endorsements, education policy questions. They worry about appearing biased, and they worry about losing their jobs. I urge you not to censor yourself into silence. I urge you to step forward, and be active participants in our democracy.

    I am not talking about using your classroom or public position as a bully pulpit for whatever issue you believe in. I understand scholarly distance and teaching in a way that respects others’ opinions. I am talking about respectfully engaging in the public debate and the political process — particularly regarding educational policy.

    Why? First, you are more knowledgeable about these issues than most people. Second, you have the constitutional right to do so. Finally, engaging as active members in our participatory democracy models what children and students need to learn and be able to do. So many times, teachers, faculty, and public employees are hesitant to step forward and speak out on issues — political issues, election debates, candidate endorsements, education policy questions. They worry about appearing biased, and they worry about losing their jobs. I urge you not to censor yourself into silence. I urge you to step forward, and be active participants in our democracy.

    I am not talking about using your classroom or public position as a bully pulpit for whatever issue you believe in. I understand scholarly distance and teaching in a way that respects others’ opinions. I am talking about respectfully engaging in the public debate and the political process — particularly regarding educational policy.

    Why? First, you are more knowledgeable about these issues than most people. Second, you have the constitutional right to do so. Finally, engaging as active members in our participatory democracy models what children and students need to learn and be able to do.”

    In addition, your selective editing left out important information about Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969) in which the Supreme Court “made it clear that neither ‘students nor teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse door’ (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506 [1969]).”

    AND, most disheartening, you fail to cite or acknowledge your source:

    Underwood, Julie. “Do You Have the Right to Be an Advocate?.” Education Week. N.p., 5 Sept. 2013. Web. 21 Oct. 2016. .

    You should probably leave journalism to the newspaper staff.

    [Reply]

    Carrie Faust Reply:

    Actually, the Colorado State Legislature enacted a law in 1990 ensuring the First Amendment rights of our scholastic reporters:

    ——————-

    Colorado student free expression law
    In addition to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, states can provide additional free speech protection their own citizens by enacting state laws or regulations. The Colorado Student Free Expression Law is such a provision and provides student journalists attending Colorado public schools with added protection against administrative censorship.

    Section 22-1-120 — Rights of free expression for public school students:

    (1) The general assembly declares that students of the public schools shall have the right to exercise freedom of speech and of the press, and no expression contained in a student publication, whether or not such publication is school-sponsored, shall be subject to prior restraint except for the types of expression described in subsection (3) of this section. This section shall not prevent the advisor from encouraging expression which is consistent with high standards of English and journalism.

    (2) If a publication written substantially by students is made generally available throughout a public school, it shall be a public forum for students of such school.

    (3) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to authorize the publication or distribution by students of the following:

    (a) Expression which is obscene;

    (b) Expression which is libelous, slanderous, or defamatory under state law;

    (c) Expression which is false as to any person who is not a public figure or involved in a matter of public concern; or

    (d) Expression which creates a clear and present danger of the commission of unlawful acts, the violation of lawful school regulations, or the material and substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the school or which violates the rights of others to privacy or that threatens violence to property or persons.

    (4) The board of education of each school district shall adopt a written publications code, which shall be consistent with the terms of this section and shall include reasonable provisions for the time, place, and manner of conducting free expression within the school district’s jurisdiction. Said publications code shall be distributed, posted, or otherwise made available to all students and teachers at the beginning of the 1991-92 school year and at the beginning of each school year thereafter.

    (5)

    (a) Student editors of school sponsored student publications shall be responsible for determining the news, opinion, and advertising content of their publications subject to the limitations of this section. It shall be the responsibility of the publications advisor of school-sponsored student publications within each school to supervise the production of such publications and to teach and encourage free and responsible expression and professional standards for English and journalism.

    (b) For the purposes of this section, “publications advisor” means a person whose duties include the supervision of school-sponsored student publications.

    (6) If participation in a school-sponsored publication is part of a school class or activity for which grades or school credits are given, the provisions of this section shall not be interpreted to interfere with the authority of the publications advisor for such school-sponsored publications to establish or limit writing assignments for the students working with the publication and to otherwise direct and control the learning experience that the publication is intended to provide.

    (7) No expression made by students in the exercise of freedom of speech or freedom of the press shall be deemed to be an expression of school policy, and no school district or employee, or parent, or legal guardian, or official of such school district shall be held liable in any civil or criminal action for any expression made or published by students.

    (8) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the promulgation or enforcement of lawful school regulations designed to control gangs. For this purpose of this section, the definition of “gang” shall be the definition found in section 19-1-103 (52), C.R.S.

    —————

    In light of this, not only did the students act well within their rights, they acted exactly as every other professional newspaper in the country has done for decades: they exhibited editorial leadership by researching the available candidates and expressing their opinion as to who would be the best leadership for their community.

    This piece does not need to be balanced. It is an editorial and, by definition, biased. It’s intention is to persuade.

    I, for one, am completely proud of these journalists who are serving their community in such a responsible way. I am a graduate of the Lewis Palmer School District and I am thrilled to see the values of civic duty are strong in this next generation.

    The Bear Truth has my full support in their choice to exercise their First Amendment rights and I hope those angry in the community will set aside their personal beliefs about the candidates long enough to realize that these students are the bright, shining future of our country.

    With respect,

    Carrie Faust, MJE
    Board member, Journalism Education Association
    Past-President, Colorado Student Media
    Member, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Commission

    [Reply]

  5. Danielle on October 13th, 2016 8:24 am

    This is so controversial and absolutely disgusting that it’s allowed to be printed. Hillary is obviously not the right choice and is leading our country into the ground but aside from my personal viewpoint, this is not okay to be printed through District 38 by kids that might not be old enough to even vote. Also completely disrespectful to the people who think otherwise and disagree with these statements. If you’re going to allow something like this to be written in the paper then you need to have both side argued. If not then it should not be allowed out because it’s way too political which is the same reason why they got turned down last year.

    [Reply]

    Chris G Reply:

    Danielle,

    Would you prefer to stifle discussion? You had a perfect opportunity to plead your case in the comments, but all you’ve basically said, “this hurts my feelings.”

    As a citizen of the United States, you should be well prepared to be offended, and prepared to defend your beliefs with rational discourse.

    [Reply]

  6. Chuck Farmer on October 13th, 2016 12:10 pm

    Hillary is a corrupt, incompetent liar. She was contacted, many times, requested additional security at Benghazi, which was denied. When she got the call that the attack was underway, she did nothing, which our people were under fire for 13 hours. (Do you think there’s anywhere in the world that we can’t have F-18 Hornets within 13 hours, ready to strike?) Then, as the bodies of the Benghazi victims came off the plane, she lied directly to the faces of the families and said it was about a video. Her e-mails, found and released since then, show that she knew at the time that wasn’t true. Add in that her foundation, which is supposed to be charitable, only pays out about 10% of it’s money to charity. The rest is used for Clinton cronies to fly around the world on boondoggles. And where does the money come from? How about foreign entities and rich people, all of which were looking for favors from the administration, which they ultimately received. As for the “server/e-mail” scandal…if any one of us had done anything approaching this, we would be in jail. If for nothing else, destroying the evidence after a subpoena was issued if sufficient for charges of obstruction of justice. Unfortunately there will be no charges, because the corrupt people at the top of the DOJ and the FBI have given immunity to everyone that should be charged. (in exchange for nothing). Our nation is in big trouble if this corrupt politician gets elected.

    [Reply]

    Bob Reply:

    Chuck is upset the paper’s op-ed endorsement isn’t for his candidate.

    Poor, sad Chuck.

    The kids made their choice. Respect it.

    [Reply]

  7. Micah Tedeschi on October 13th, 2016 7:17 pm

    I think it’s really cool that you spoke your mind and frankly the truth. Really well written article and don’t let what anyone says change your mind or who you are.

    [Reply]

  8. Deanna Telles on October 14th, 2016 9:28 am

    Well-written and researched article. Great job! While I don’t agree with some of your points, I’m happy to see you’re taking an active interest in politics and our country’s future. This is an incredibly divisive election and it took a lot of bravery to publish this piece. I really hope that the backlash from some of the “adults” in our community doesn’t discourage you from continuing to make your voices heard.

    [Reply]

  9. Gabriele Lacrampe on October 14th, 2016 1:08 pm

    This election is certainly different from anything we’ve seen in the past. It is not surprising, that you as students feel the need to share your opinion with your peers. Reading through your essay, it seems that you were doing your due diligence and researched the different aspects, which can’t be said about other statements I read on this topic. The essay is well written and balanced.

    I’m grateful, that our school provides the opportunity for all students to experience journalism and letting them explore the political process in a supervised, safe environment.

    Thank you also to the educators, who encourage and support our students by guiding them through this multi-tiered process, even if you’re probably not always in agreement with the final conclusions. We experience this as parents, too, as we strive to support our students as best as possible on their journey of becoming critical thinkers and responsible citizens.

    [Reply]

    Gordon Reichal Reply:

    However this violates formal written school district policy as provided in many other posts. Do you support other violations of district policy also? Which ones ? Do you think the school athletic staff fired for violating other school policies were discriminated against?

    [Reply]

    Carrie Faust Reply:

    Actually, the Colorado State Legislature enacted a law in 1990 ensuring the First Amendment rights of our scholastic reporters:

    ——————-

    Colorado student free expression law
    In addition to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, states can provide additional free speech protection their own citizens by enacting state laws or regulations. The Colorado Student Free Expression Law is such a provision and provides student journalists attending Colorado public schools with added protection against administrative censorship.

    Section 22-1-120 — Rights of free expression for public school students:

    (1) The general assembly declares that students of the public schools shall have the right to exercise freedom of speech and of the press, and no expression contained in a student publication, whether or not such publication is school-sponsored, shall be subject to prior restraint except for the types of expression described in subsection (3) of this section. This section shall not prevent the advisor from encouraging expression which is consistent with high standards of English and journalism.

    (2) If a publication written substantially by students is made generally available throughout a public school, it shall be a public forum for students of such school.

    (3) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to authorize the publication or distribution by students of the following:

    (a) Expression which is obscene;

    (b) Expression which is libelous, slanderous, or defamatory under state law;

    (c) Expression which is false as to any person who is not a public figure or involved in a matter of public concern; or

    (d) Expression which creates a clear and present danger of the commission of unlawful acts, the violation of lawful school regulations, or the material and substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the school or which violates the rights of others to privacy or that threatens violence to property or persons.

    (4) The board of education of each school district shall adopt a written publications code, which shall be consistent with the terms of this section and shall include reasonable provisions for the time, place, and manner of conducting free expression within the school district’s jurisdiction. Said publications code shall be distributed, posted, or otherwise made available to all students and teachers at the beginning of the 1991-92 school year and at the beginning of each school year thereafter.

    (5)

    (a) Student editors of school sponsored student publications shall be responsible for determining the news, opinion, and advertising content of their publications subject to the limitations of this section. It shall be the responsibility of the publications advisor of school-sponsored student publications within each school to supervise the production of such publications and to teach and encourage free and responsible expression and professional standards for English and journalism.

    (b) For the purposes of this section, “publications advisor” means a person whose duties include the supervision of school-sponsored student publications.

    (6) If participation in a school-sponsored publication is part of a school class or activity for which grades or school credits are given, the provisions of this section shall not be interpreted to interfere with the authority of the publications advisor for such school-sponsored publications to establish or limit writing assignments for the students working with the publication and to otherwise direct and control the learning experience that the publication is intended to provide.

    (7) No expression made by students in the exercise of freedom of speech or freedom of the press shall be deemed to be an expression of school policy, and no school district or employee, or parent, or legal guardian, or official of such school district shall be held liable in any civil or criminal action for any expression made or published by students.

    (8) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the promulgation or enforcement of lawful school regulations designed to control gangs. For this purpose of this section, the definition of “gang” shall be the definition found in section 19-1-103 (52), C.R.S.

    —————

    In light of this, not only did the students act well within their rights, they acted exactly as every other professional newspaper in the country has done for decades: they exhibited editorial leadership by researching the available candidates and expressing their opinion as to who would be the best leadership for their community.

    This piece does not need to be balanced. It is an editorial and, by definition, biased. It’s intention is to persuade.

    I, for one, am completely proud of these journalists who are serving their community in such a responsible way. I am a graduate of the Lewis Palmer School District and I am thrilled to see the values of civic duty are strong in this next generation.

    The Bear Truth has my full support in their choice to exercise their First Amendment rights and I hope those angry in the community will set aside their personal beliefs about the candidates long enough to realize that these students are the bright, shining future of our country.

    With respect,

    Carrie Faust, MJE
    Board member, Journalism Education Association
    Past-President, Colorado Student Media
    Member, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Commission

    [Reply]

  10. Kris Rone on October 14th, 2016 1:52 pm

    Great job! Stand strong!! We are proud of you all.

    [Reply]

  11. Tim on October 14th, 2016 2:32 pm

    I’m going to submit the crazy idea that maybe students should be allowed to express and debate their ideas at school, and parents shouldn’t feel like their political beliefs are threatened by an article in a high-school newspaper. Let’s treat these kids like the mature, thinking members of society they are and not feel like we need to silence any opinion that doesn’t match our own.

    [Reply]

    Arleaux Reply:

    Excellent proposal! I second the motion.

    As a high school teacher, I’m impressed by this article. Very cohesive and the level of writing is far above anything I see on a daily basis. (In fact, if one of my kids submitted this, I would think a parent wrote it. LOL)

    [Reply]

  12. Rommel on October 14th, 2016 3:40 pm

    This article is honestly just embarrassing and I am disgusted with the complete lack of objectivity expressed. I am amazed the quality of the newspaper has declined so much since I left Palmer Ridge. Every person is entitled to their opinion, and I have no issue with the articles publication, but it is extremely obvious that the people writing this did exactly zero research from any point of view other than their own. The MSM has done a very good job of fooling people who can’t even vote into supporting possibly the most blatantly corrupt person to ever run for office in the United States. The authors of this piece clearly never even gave Clinton’s opponents a chance. I would like to counter some of the things said here, although I doubt anyone who wrote this article will ever read what I have to say.
    First I think it is hilarious that so many people are happy with what the first lady does while her husband is in office. This does not apply only to Hillary Clinton, but to any person related to anyone who holds elected office. The people of this country vote for a president. The spouse of that president is irrelevant, or should be. Giving political power to anyone who is not elected is wrong, and not the will of the people. Like I said before, this applies to all elected officials and their spouses, not just Hillary.
    Second, I also think it is hilarious that you believe that Hillary supports women’s rights more than Trump or either of the third party candidates. Hillary is the only one who accepts multi-million dollar donations from Saudi Arabia, a country and culture where women are blatantly abused and oppressed. Islam is repressive to women, and the idea that it is empowering or that women are equal under Islam is simply ridiculous. According to the recent Podesta leaks, Saudi Arabia arms and funds ISIS, and Hillary was aware of that fact when she approved her $125 million weapons deal with the Saudis immediately after she received a multi-million dollar donation to the Clinton Foundation from them. In addition to her support of the clear enemies of women’s rights, she also shamed and harassed Bill Clinton’s rape victims and defended a child rapist in her earlier years as a lawyer, then laughed about it later. Hillary is significantly less “for women” than Trump is. Trump has more female CEOs running his companies than male. He was the first businessman ever to hire a woman to direct the construction of one of his skyscrapers. The fact that he said some bad things about specific women who said equally bad things about him does not make him sexist. He has said plenty of equally disparaging things about men. The idea that saying bad things about a woman makes a person a sexist is in itself sexist because it implies that women are weaker than men and cannot handle criticism as well.
    Most of the things that Hillary did while she was a senator are valid. However, working with other people in government, even when they are your political opponents is not something incredible or interesting. Every politician has to do it. Trump is a businessman. His entire livelihood is based on making deals. He will be better at it than Hillary.
    I don’t really want to talk about Benghazi because it has been done so many times. Almost everything you said about Hillary’s lack of involvement is just completely untrue. This is what I mean about only doing research that benefits who you support. Hillary directly gave the order to lower the number of soldiers protecting the embassy. Hillary was directly contacted about the attacks. She easily could have ordered soldiers and planes to support the soldiers stationed there. She did not, and people died. Your justification that she took responsibility because she is a good leader is ridiculous. Also, citing Time magazine as a source is pretty funny. They are about as objective as you are.
    Take one look at Syria and Libya if you want to know about Hillary’s foreign policy. I know those are Trump’s go to points, but he is right. The power vacuum in Libya has allowed radical Islamic groups and the Muslim Brotherhood to take over the country. The same thing has happened in Syria. The rebels are no better if not worse than Assad. Also, politico and politifact are, once again, not objective in any way. Just read some of the blurbs on politifact about what Trump has said and compare them to Hillary and others on the left. You find things like this constantly:
    https://i.sli.mg/SvyzhC.jpg
    https://i.sli.mg/hpRvUA.png
    https://i.sli.mg/euwgJf.png
    In that last one they say exactly the same thing as him, but rate it only half true. They are clearly biased and obviously not factual.
    Trump has not been endorsed by many establishment politicians. Is anyone surprised by that? The answer is no. He would destroy their status quo, as would any other non-establishment candidate. The DNC made sure Bernie would lose for this exact reason. He has been endorsed by a significant portion of our military and police forces. That is more important to me and I believe to the average American, than endorsements by politicians, many of them unelected, that we already believe are corrupt.
    Again, you source biased media outlets. The Washington Post is not a credible source. It is even less objective than Time and Politico. Also, Trump has a lot of money in his campaign. A very large portion of it is his. He can spend his money on whatever he wants. There is no evidence that the money he spent on that portrait was from donations.
    His comments were not about Hispanics in general. I don’t really understand why leftists refuse to acknowledge that he was talking about illegal immigrants, who are criminals whether you like it or not. Entering the country illegally is breaking the law. That makes illegal immigrants criminals. Obviously not everyone of Hispanic heritage is a criminal, but illegal immigrants are.
    Trump’s website has fewer words on it. Who cares? He does not have the same amount of information that Clinton has, or even close to the same number of campaign staffers. His plans are simple and hopefully will be effective.
    Trump has not told our enemies his plan for defeating them. I know none of you have a military background or know anything about war but this point is simply idiotic. Anyone knows you don’t tell the enemy the plan. Recall that I mentioned earlier that Trump has been endorsed by many more military officials than Hillary. I wonder why?
    The refugee crisis is Hillary’s direct responsibility. Isis is her (accidental) creation, and the situation in the rest of the Middle East is also basically her fault. Bringing in people to our country who are from a completely different and as far as I have seen, incompatible culture with our values is not a good idea. Look at Germany or Sweden. Rates of rape in Sweden went up 4000% after they allowed a significant number of refugees into their country. The same thing happened in Germany, but the German government managed to cover it up for a while. Remember new years in Cologne? The German people remember. Bringing in refugees is not a good idea, especially if you believe in equality for women because the refugees clearly do not.
    Clinton is a criminal and should be in prison. Anyone who has had access to classified materials will tell you they would be in prison indefinitely if they did anything close to what Hillary did.
    If you knew anything about Trump’s tax policy, you would know that it cuts taxes across the board, middle class included. While this is not good for the national debt, it is good for the average American economically. Read “The Road to Serfdom” and you will understand what I mean.
    I agree that this is the most important election in our lifetimes which is ironic considering most of the authors of this article cannot vote. I cannot tell you who to vote for, if you can, and I cannot tell you for sure what will happen after this election, but I believe that anyone is better than Hillary Clinton, the most two-faced and dishonest politician I have ever seen.

    [Reply]

  13. Cindy and Steve Waldmann on October 14th, 2016 6:57 pm

    Great job Editorial Board!! Stay strong in your beliefs and don’t be intimidated by anyone. You will be our future leaders and we feel confident that you will be thoroughly prepared at Palmer Ridge (and beyond) to take that lead. We are proud of you!

    [Reply]

  14. Brad Robenstein on October 17th, 2016 10:28 am

    I applaud the efforts of the Editorial Board and the fact that District 38 and PRHS gives them the opportunity to express their opinion. This is a real world learning experience. Many newspapers and publications across the Untied States are exercising the same right to free speech and voicing their opinions on the candidates for President of the United States. Accept the positive and negative responses and stand by your opinion and your diligent efforts to develop it. Great job!

    [Reply]

  15. Jimmy Groove on October 19th, 2016 3:54 am

    Good job standing up for yourself and reason. It is very sad that you have to deal with all this bullying as a result. Hell, before this is over there will be violence, and you kids might end up facing some. That’s depressing, but reality often is.

    Keep being strong, and don’t let monsters beat you down if you can help it.

    [Reply]

  16. John Drubstein on October 19th, 2016 6:56 am

    Love how passionately stupid all these Trump supporters are.. Do you realize this election is going to be a landslide win for Clinton and it’s not even close right now? I’d be shocked if Trump gets more electoral votes than Romney.. This election was over before it even started. Unless the GOP gets their heads out of their *@$%#, Hillary will be in office for 8 years.

    [Reply]

  17. Ari Read on October 19th, 2016 7:45 am

    Fantastic editorial! Great job excerising thoughtful free speech in a society that needs young people to be engaged in politics now more than ever. Ignore your detractors, who would rather stifle free speech and discourse over acknowledging that someone disagrees with them. Keep up the great work. (And cite this article and its backlash when you guys write your college essays!)

    [Reply]

  18. Michelle F on October 19th, 2016 9:03 am

    Very proud of you. It is not easy to speak your mind or have a different opinion in that town. When you do leave Monument and see that the world has many different views, you will finally be free and not have to fear for your home, life and family. Put all of this, including the town, in your rear view mirror and know that they will stand there with their moral pitchforks and WWJD bracelets while they threaten your family. You gave voice to others that are oppressed by this towns mindset and who have to stay silent out of fear. You are brave.

    [Reply]

  19. James Edward Lewis II on October 19th, 2016 9:22 am

    This episode is one of many that show how malevolent and censorious the far-right base of Donald Trump’s support really is; I read on electoral-vote.com today that the Facebook comments were even worse.

    [Reply]

  20. Robert Chase on October 19th, 2016 9:34 am

    The ignorant, anti-American fascists decrying the Bear Truth’s editorial need to leave the United States at once!

    [Reply]

  21. Sharron Battistella on October 19th, 2016 9:47 am

    I agree with you, I’m just curious as to how you came up with this endorsement. Online and in school polling?

    [Reply]

  22. Bob on October 19th, 2016 10:07 am

    It’s hilarious to me that student’s using the First Amendment rights have outraged parents.

    Did the kids upset your Republican safe space, parents?

    The kids are allowed to print this.

    They don’t agree with you, and you cry about it like children? I’d wager these kids are far more grown up than the lot of you.

    Republicans wanting to shut down dissent, opposing ideas, and political challengers. That’s just par for the course. And, now they want to shut down these kid’s First Amendment rights.

    Stay classy, parents. You’re a disgrace to your children, our state, and this country.

    [Reply]

  23. Roy Graves on October 19th, 2016 11:17 am

    I would be proud to have children who were thoughtful and smart enough to have written this editorial.

    [Reply]

  24. Kim Griego-Kiel on October 19th, 2016 12:00 pm

    Great job thinking this through and researching your opinion and endorsement of your candidate. Shame on those trying to silence you just because they see you as “kids” that they can bully and push around and try to control your opinions. You are young adults who will become the next leaders and you need to learn to think for yourselves and form your own opinions. You have the same First Amendment rights as everyone else. You are on your way to becoming good productive members of society and don’t let the Bullies beat you down. Stand strong and hold onto your beliefs. There is power in them. That is why they come after you.

    [Reply]

    Arleaux Reply:

    Ditto!

    [Reply]

  25. Evan Anderson on October 19th, 2016 12:00 pm

    I didn’t agree with everything in the article, it reduced multiple major issues deserving a lot more in depth discussion into short opinionated paragraphs. I also would have liked to see an opinion piece on the other side, or with a third party in mind, but with that being said, I love that my former school and newspaper that I worked on is allowed, by PRHS, district, and national standards and laws, to take a stand and publish their opinions as they did.

    With regards to parent’s “outrage”: you sent your child to the school to be educated, and to develop into their own person with their own ideas and opinions. If the school did their job, which having graduated from PRHS and university I can attest that the school and it’s educators such as Mr. Patrick did an excellent job in giving me all the resources to become educated and free thinking, than these expectations can held for your student’s as well.

    The Bear Truth is presenting an opinion. Your student should be allowed to read it, or trash it, and determine for themselves if they agree or disagree with the opinion. This is how discussion is created, and if you disagree so whole-heartedly with the opinion’s presented, the more power to you and your child to discuss what’s wrong in the article, what wasn’t covered, and what their vote could mean beyond the context of the Editorial Staff’s opinions.

    But to remove the article, to deplore the Bear Truth Staff/Mr. Patrick/D-38’s decision to allow editorial freedom, and to fight with each other in the threads, is extremely counterproductive and will ultimately move the discussion backwards into my side is right / your side is wrong territory.

    We all have our opinions on the direction of the country, which is a blessing and a curse in these times, especially when the opinions are so strong as they are in this election, but we need to share these opinions intelligently and respectfully if we all want to move forward to better times together.

    The Bear Truth did this with their article. I’m proud that the article furthered the discussion and has made national coverage- I guarantee none of my articles were talked about a hundredth as much as this one has. It is now up to the voting aged students to take this article, discuss it with their friends and family and internet forums, and use it to develop their opinion in one way or another, and make an educated vote in November.

    [Reply]

  26. Jim Knutsen on October 19th, 2016 1:23 pm

    This election is weighing heavily on most everyone I know, and sometimes the emotions get the better of us. You can see it in some of the comments here.

    But, folks, we should be thrilled to have our kids at a school that values critical thinking and teaches kids how to develop, communicate, and defend their own ideas.

    Kudos to Mr. Patrick for encouraging independent thought, and to Mr. Gabel and the school board for defending our kids’ right to free speech and a good education.

    (And, for the record, I’d say the same thing if the editorial board had endorsed Donald Trump.)

    [Reply]

  27. Karen Page on October 19th, 2016 1:32 pm

    THANK YOU to the editorial board and The Bear Truth staff for celebrating Free Speech Week the right way — by doing good journalism. Editorials are a mainstay of print publications, and you argued your point with reason and research.

    There will always be naysayers. Every working journalist can tell you about the first piece of hate mail they ever received. Never let them get you down.

    It’s disgusting to me to see people attempt to bully a student press because they can. They don’t take the time to learn the law (as you have) or the role of a newspaper (as you have); they just go with raw emotion and ignore reality. It’s a sad commentary on our society in 2016.

    Again, keep up the good fight and the good journalism.

    [Reply]

  28. Lydia on October 19th, 2016 1:54 pm

    Thoughtful and well written. Bravo for standing up for what you believe in, regardless of what those around you may say. Proud to be a part of a country with such bright, brave young people.

    Looking forward to great things from you all!

    [Reply]

  29. Carrie on October 19th, 2016 2:33 pm

    I am actually anti-Clinton but also not pro-Trump. Note that students do not give up their rights at the school house gates. Students do not give up their religious freedom rights, freedom of speech rights, or any other rights at the school house gates. They have every right to form an opinion and express those opinions. There are many legal cases that support this.
    PRHS and D38 maybe it is time for some diversity training for students and parents as well.

    I may not agree with the candidate that was endorsed but I absolutely agree with the right of the students to publish this opinion piece. Good job Bear Truth!

    [Reply]

  30. James Gustafson on October 19th, 2016 2:35 pm

    What I find interesting about this endorsement is the backlash. Some adults act as if this was some kind of opinion by a generation that questions their political views. Well, they’re right. And why shouldn’t they? It’s the job of the younger generation to have new ideas and dreams. It’s our job as the older generation to give them the knowledge that we learned throughout our lives. It’s not our job to cram our ideas, fears, and insecurities down their throats. They will accept what we have learned or they won’t. And no matter what people might feel about it they will say what they think. It’s called freedom of speech and if you don’t like it take it up with our founding fathers.

    [Reply]

  31. Karrah on October 19th, 2016 4:50 pm

    I’m proud of the students. I’m embarrassed and disappointed in our parents. Let the kids handle their stuff.

    [Reply]

  32. Bill Webb on October 19th, 2016 6:31 pm

    I think the students, parents, and staff of this paper should be proud of what they’ve done. Irrespective of which candidate has been endorsed, it is the duty and responsibility of a free press to speak out on the matters of the day. People calling for the editor’s job or any restraint on The Bear Truth’s editorial board are either mistaken or willfully ignorant of the value that a free press brings to its readers. Bravo!

    [Reply]

  33. Bwr on October 19th, 2016 9:25 pm

    I am disgusted and disappointed. In what was printed, not that it was printed. . I was also saddened by what was printed, not that it was printed. The students should be given every opportunity to express their opinion. In this case, for me, and for many others, the students have only demonstrated just how inexperienced, misguided, and ignorant they are to the real issues in this election and how to formulate a well-written editorial . These students also revealed their immaturity and inexperience by whining and complaining about the reaction they provoked by publishing such a poorly supported and researched editorial to an audience they sorely underestimated and did not respect. The editorial revealed an astonishing lack of well-reasoned research, critical thinking, and objectivity.
    .
    ,

    [Reply]

  34. Robert A. Baker on October 20th, 2016 11:40 am

    As a former newspaper reporter and editor, I am glad to see that student journalists are continuing the role of a newspaper during an election: researching the issues and forming a well-thought-out recommendation. Endorsing a candidate is meant to bring discussion to the issue and from, what I can see, the students of The Bear Truth have done their job well. My compliments to the staff of this paper, I know that they will go on to serve their communities well in whatever endeavors they find themselves in after their graduation.
    It doesn’t matter who you are voting for, you should take great pride in having these students in your community.

    [Reply]

  35. Lis Wilson on October 20th, 2016 1:23 pm

    Well done on an Opinion piece that cites research and sources! Your article was well written, clear, and easy to follow. Congratulations on the bravery to publish a pro Democrat opinion in a school (and area) that is overwhelmingly Republican. Clearly you knew going into this that the majority of students would disagree with your opinion, but the free press isn’t there to pander to the wishes of the masses. The shock to me, and probably to you, is the vitriol of the parental response just for speaking your mind. Apparently these parents are not familiar with Voltaire, who fought his whole life for free speech, and has been summarized by E. Hall: I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Opinions are just that–opinions, formed from personal feelings and views and informed by facts. Different issues will hold more sway over each of us depending on our views and life, so everyone is entitled to their own opinions. The idea of publishing two articles, one in favor of each candidate, is ridiculous. The Gazette doesn’t do that (nor does any newspaper that I know of). Newspapers take stands on issues, and as editors of the Bear Truth you have the same rights as all other editors to do the same. It is refreshing to hear a political opinion that includes the reasons for reaching your decision instead of the usual “that person sucks” answer, which is meant to discourage further discussion. As a parent of a graduate of PR and a senior at PR , I am thrilled to see that Mr. Patrick and the school are encouraging independent thinking. It takes guts and courage to stand with your convictions! Congrats and stand strong!

    [Reply]

  36. Allen Thompson on October 21st, 2016 9:00 am

    Congratulations to the editorial board of The Bear Truth for your op-ed that has generated so much discussion and emotion. You didn’t resort to sensationalism to provoke the discourse, yet your readers were provoked. This is the stuff of real editorialists.

    [Reply]

  37. Patrick Moring on October 21st, 2016 9:39 am

    In 1990, Colorado passed the student freedom of expression law. The bottom line is that this isn’t a violation of any district, school, or staff policy and never will be because it wasn’t their opinion. School journalism is covered by the 1st ammendment and Colorado state law. It was the students that wrote it, not district staff. You might not agree with their opinion, but that is what makes the United States different. We encourage and defend the right to have an opinion and express it. Don’t attack the district. Instead, applaud the students that were brave enough to excercise their right to take a stance and express it. After all, isn’t the point of education to help young minds develop enough to form their own opinions and make their own decisions? Kudos to to the editorial board of students that understand their rights as student journalists.

    [Reply]

  38. Dan Kolbet on October 21st, 2016 9:52 am

    One of the most reasoned explanations for an endorsement that I’ve seen this election season. As an adult with a journalism degree, and a former newspaper editor, I applaud this ed board for speaking up in a respectable, reasoned manner when so many adults are doing the opposite. Parents, if you disagree with the opinion expressed here, take a lesson from the students who wrote this editorial and rationally explain your opinion. Wanting to take away their right to express an opinion? Well, that sounds like something Trump would do. Not cool.

    [Reply]

  39. Timm Pilcher on October 21st, 2016 12:43 pm

    As a 22-year veteran journalism adviser, I believe there is only one thing to say about this editorial .. KUDOS!

    In the face of constant and often misinformed adversity to the press, you have remained true to the ideals of the Fourth Estate.

    Keep. It. UP!

    [Reply]

  40. David Misyura on October 21st, 2016 2:32 pm

    I won’t mention my opinion on either candidate because that’s important for what I have to say about this article and the controversy it’s garnered. To the point, all I have to say is that this article is simply an expression of our freedom of speech, so I find it insane that people are attacking it in terms of it doing something wrong in that regard. Several people have commented here that you’re able to agree or disagree with the article, and I agree wholeheartedly. Take the article for what it is. You can check the facts, scrutinize the level of opinion, and anything you wish. It’s for you to read and to further the discussion. The article is able to exist in this country because of our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of press, so you can agree or disagree with its message, but its not doing anything wrong in those terms.

    [Reply]

  41. Cynthia Stone on October 21st, 2016 4:16 pm

    Kudos to the editorial board of “The Bear Truth” for having the courage to publish this editorial!

    I am very impressed with your process — research the facts, debate the issues, then lastly make a decision. It shows maturity and reason.

    I have long been concerned about the apparent loss of basic critical thinking, especially in the blogosphere and social media where even the ability to differentiate a fact from an opinion seems to be slipping away (even seen in some of the comments above). You have given me hope that reason will win.

    And even though most of you may not be old enough to vote, you have found a way to participate in this most important foundation of our democracy, the (hopefully) peaceful transition of power.

    Keep up the great work!

    [Reply]

  42. William on October 21st, 2016 4:57 pm

    How courageous of you to endorse a criminal whose Clinton Foundation only gives 6% of its earnings to charity. She also rigged the primary and stole the election from Bernie Sanders.
    Did you do this to make your parents mad in a highly conservative area?
    Trump is bad too but do not support the devil.
    Do you know she seeks to silence Julian Assange, a real journalist exposing the truth?
    She is responsible for the toil and death in Libya and Syria.

    [Reply]

  43. Judy Babb on October 22nd, 2016 7:32 pm

    It’s strange that there are those who don’t want children to think, to form opinions and then voice them. Isn’t that what education is about? This presidential race has been crazy, nasty and unbelievable. I don’t remember any other race being like this. I can’t imagine a president who drops curse words as if they are acceptable, who would demean women and those with disabilities, who disavows things he says when they are easily proved and more. It doesn’t matter who you want to vote for. We should encourage our children to make educated decisions–even if you don’t agree with them.

    [Reply]

  44. Chrisanna Melick on October 25th, 2016 10:03 am

    I am the media adviser in Waxahachie, Texas, and the staff editorial is just that – the opinion of the Media Staff as a whole. It is not a time in which you show both sides of the issue. You pick a side, do your research, and write your opinion. That’s it. On any topic as controversial as this, there are bound to be people who disagree, and that’s okay. It should generate mature, responsible discussion on both sides. As the teacher, we keep our opinions out of it, and let the students express themselves. I am super proud of these kids for a job well done! Our founding fathers would be proud to see the First Amendment being exercised in our public schools!

    [Reply]

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a gravatar.




Navigate Right
Navigate Left
  • News

    Wind Ensemble headed to state competition

  • We’re with her: The Bear Truth Editorial Board Endorses Hillary Clinton for president

    News

    Getting down to business

  • We’re with her: The Bear Truth Editorial Board Endorses Hillary Clinton for president

    Showcase

    Brent Schwarz – Class of 2011 Grad Shined on the Ice with Palmer Ridge and Michigan State

  • We’re with her: The Bear Truth Editorial Board Endorses Hillary Clinton for president

    Showcase

    RPI: What is it and How has it Changed the Game at Palmer Ridge?

  • We’re with her: The Bear Truth Editorial Board Endorses Hillary Clinton for president

    News

    The Bear Truth honored for FEARless journalism

  • We’re with her: The Bear Truth Editorial Board Endorses Hillary Clinton for president

    News

    BNTC Places at the Pikes Peak Region Invitational One-Act Competition

  • We’re with her: The Bear Truth Editorial Board Endorses Hillary Clinton for president

    Showcase

    Rogue One: A Star Wars Story Worth Five Stars

  • We’re with her: The Bear Truth Editorial Board Endorses Hillary Clinton for president

    Showcase

    Aerospace Engineering

  • We’re with her: The Bear Truth Editorial Board Endorses Hillary Clinton for president

    News

    Palmer Ridge Academic Building Vandalized

  • We’re with her: The Bear Truth Editorial Board Endorses Hillary Clinton for president

    Showcase

    Bears Fall to Kent Denver, Take 2nd in State Competition

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






The student news site of Palmer Ridge High School
We’re with her: The Bear Truth Editorial Board Endorses Hillary Clinton for president