After half a century, the New York Times will no longer publish an Op-Ed page — or at least not one under that name. Commentaries on the news written by contributors outside of the newspaper’s regular staff will be called “guest essays” to explain their role without using what opinion editor Kathleen Kingsbury calls “clubby newspaper jargon” (“Why We’re Retiring the Term ‘Op-Ed’,” April 27).

Today’s readers may not realize that “op-ed” is shorthand for placement “opposite the editorial” page in the layout of unfolded newsprint.  Yet while some of its format is specific to what one book title called “The Vanishing Newspaper” as early as 2004, the op-ed’s essentials deserve better than to silently crumble like the yellowing journalism of last week’s newspaper.

The format might seem to exemplify what Noam Chomsky calls mainstream media’s efforts “to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views.” Chomsky’s own views were among the most critical and dissident solicited by the Times, an offer he declined because his academic background made “it enormously more difficult to write 700 words than 7000.”

Yet a tight argument made with a few hundred well-chosen words can lead general readers to more in-depth takes, and the range of disagreement that can be squeezed into them is broad indeed.  Nearly a century ago, the immense newspaper chain of William Randolph Hearst gave Bertrand Russell the space to recommend the individualism of anarchist philosopher William Godwin as an antidote to “docility, suggestibility, herd-instinct and conventionality” and the notion “that social conformity is the beginning and end of virtue.”

Kingsbury insists that the ability of the public to have its perspectives heard directly via websites like Facebook and Substack “is to be welcomed” rather than feared, but wonders whether “ideas can linger a while” in a cyberspace even more fixated on immediacy than the daily or weekly news cycles of print. The unfiltered energy of such formats, and of older ones like blogs and zines, can be focused rather than squelched by the sharpness and clarity pioneered by the humble op-ed.

New Yorker Joel Schlosberg is a contributing editor at The William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “If you don’t op-ed, will you get enough?” by Joel Schlosberg, Richmond, North Carolina Observer, 04/30/21
• “If You Don’t Op-Ed, Will You Get Enough?” by Joel Schlosberg, Miles City, Montana Star, 04/30/21
• “If You Don’t Op-Ed, Will You Get Enough?” by Joel Schlosberg, CounterPunch, 05/03/21
• “If You Don’t Op-Ed, Will You Get Enough?” by Joel Schlosberg, Queens [New York] Ledger, 05/04/21
• “If You Don’t Op-Ed, Will You Get Enough?” by Joel Schlosberg, Forest Hills/Rego Park [New York] Times, 05/04/21
• “If You Don’t Op-Ed, Will You Get Enough?” by Joel Schlosberg, The Glendale [New York] Register, 05/04/21
• “If You Don’t Op-Ed, Will You Get Enough?” by Joel Schlosberg, Leader/Observer [New York City], 05/04/21
• “If You Don’t Op-Ed, Will You Get Enough?” by Joel Schlosberg, The Long Island City/Astoria [New York] Journal, 05/04/21
• “If You Don’t Op-Ed, Will You Get Enough?” by Joel Schlosberg, Queens [New York] Examiner, 05/04/21
• “If You Don’t Op-Ed, Will You Get Enough?” by Joel Schlosberg, Greenpoint [New York] Star, 05/04/21
• “If You Don’t Op-Ed, Will You Get Enough?” by Joel Schlosberg, Brooklyn [New York] Downtown Star, 05/04/21
• “If You Don’t Op-Ed, Will You Get Enough?” by Joel Schlosberg, OpEdNews, 05/07/2021
• “If You Don’t Op-Ed, Will You Get Enough?” by Joel Schlosberg, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 05/08/2021
• “If you don’t op-ed, will you get enough?” by Joel Schlosberg, Chicago [Illinois] Weekend Citizen, 05/19/21

The Washington Post, citing anonymous sources, reports that the Biden administration is poised to propose a ban on menthol cigarettes. The reason? Well, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 85 percent of black smokers choose the flavored cigarettes over “plain” tobacco, versus 29 percent of white smokers.

In the fantasy world that Joe Biden (and the anti-tobacco crusaders and fake civil rights advocates who have his ear) live in, a menthol cigarette ban will “protect” the black community from the effects of “aggressive marketing” by the tobacco industry, whether that community really wants to be “protected” or not.

In the real world, what Biden and company are saying is that black Americans are too stupid to make the “right” choices on their own and that government must therefore make those choices for them.

There’s a word for that kind of attitude toward people based on skin color.  The word is “racism.”

Not that Biden’s racism has ever been a secret. In 1986, he led the legislative fight to punish black cocaine users (who, on average, preferred their cocaine in “rock,” or “crack” form) more harshly than white cocaine users (who, on average, preferred their coke in powder form).

Oh, he apologized, sixteen years later, saying he’d made a “profound mistake.” But he obviously neither learned from that mistake nor reconsidered his racist attitudes. By 2020 he was claiming the expertise to evaluate the “blackness” of voters based on their choice of presidential candidate.

In addition to believing that black Americans are too stupid to be allowed to make their own choices on smoking, Biden apparently also believes they’re too stupid to figure out that they can “season” plain tobacco cigarettes with menthol flavoring from crushable capsules or eye-droppers.

A federal ban on menthol cigarettes will be even less effective as a way of reducing tobacco use among black Americans  than higher mandatory minimum sentences were as a way of reducing drug use among black Americans.

If there’s an up side to Biden’s continuing racism, it’s that he’s gone from harshly punitive to annoyingly paternalistic. Instead of throwing black Americans in prison cells for endless years to punish them for their choices, he just wants to inflict endless minutes of inconvenience on them in the name of “helping” them.

As a menthol smoker myself, I have to hope that “cancel culture” swings into action and de-platforms Biden over this racist silliness.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “Menthol Cigarette Ban: At Least This Time, Biden’s Racism Won’t Put His Victims in Cages,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 04/29/21
• “Menthol cigarette ban — At least this time, Biden’s racism won’t put his victims in cages,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Havasu City, Arizona News-Herald, 05/01/21
• “Menthol Cigarette Ban: At Least This Time, Biden’s Racism Won’t Put His Victims in Cages,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 05/07/21
• “Racism Hiding in the Menthol,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Florence, Alabama Courier Journal [web and print], 05/11/21

In 1969, the US Supreme Court held, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, that students don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”   Schools may only prohibit, censor, or punish student speech which would “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.”

But what about speech that occurs outside the schoolhouse gate, and outside school hours? The Court is about to take on that issue in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.

In 2017, 14-year-old high school freshman Brandi Levy found herself suspended from her school’s cheerleading squad for a year over an intemperate Snapchat post published from off campus and over the weekend.

“F*** school f*** softball f*** cheer f*** everything,” Levy wrote, emphasizing her upset at not making the varsity cheer squad with a photo of herself and a friend raising their middle fingers.

Levy sued over the suspension and won.  Four years later, she studies accounting in college as she awaits a US Supreme Court ruling on her former school’s appeal.

The school district claims the power to regulate and punish “substantially disruptive” student speech, even when the student speaks off campus and outside school hours.

Brandi Levy says the district’s power over student speech ends at the campus property line and the end of the school day.

Even leaving aside the question of whether Levy’s rant was “substantially disruptive” (as a student, I heard much worse on campus and during school hours without any accompanying “disruptions”), it’s important to draw a bright line here: She’s right, they’re wrong, and it isn’t a close call.

Most state laws mandate attendance at government-operated schools for most minors (with some exceptions for private or home schooling).

The government gets substantial control of our kids for several hours a day, five days a week, not counting homework and extracurricular activities.

That substantial control must end at the schoolhouse door and at the final bell.

Apart from true threats of violence, which are actionable whether the perpetrator is a student or not,  what our kids say, how they say it, and who they say it to when they’re not at school is simply none of the school’s business.

In the age of social media, it’s more important than ever for the Supreme Court to protect students’ free speech rights off campus as well as on.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• • “SCOTUS should clarify Tinker in favor of free speech, not school control,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Richmond, North Carolina Observer, 04/26/21
  • “High court should side with free speech, not school control,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Spring Hope, North Carolina Enterprise, 04/26/21
  • “SCOTUS should clarify Tinker in favor of free speech, not school control,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Creston, Iowa News Advertiser, 04/26/21
  • “SCOTUS should clarify Tinker in favor of free speech, not school control,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Osceola, Iowa Sentinel-Tribune, 04/26/21
  • “High court should side with free speech, not school control,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Wilson, North Carolina Times, 04/26/21
  • “In Tinker case, SCOTUS should rule in favor of free speech, not school control,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Orange County, California Register, 04/27/21
  • “In Tinker case, SCOTUS should rule in favor of free speech, not school control,” by Thomas L. Knapp, San Gabriel Valley, California Tribune, 04/27/21
  • “In Tinker case, SCOTUS should rule in favor of free speech, not school control,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Riverside, California Press-Enterprise, 04/27/21
  • “In Tinker case, SCOTUS should rule in favor of free speech, not school control,” by Thomas L. Knapp, San Bernardino, California Sun, 04/27/21
  • “In Tinker case, SCOTUS should rule in favor of free speech, not school control,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Los Angeles, California Daily News, 04/27/21
  • “In Tinker case, SCOTUS should rule in favor of free speech, not school control,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Long Beach, California Press-Telegram, 04/27/21
  • “In Tinker case, SCOTUS should rule in favor of free speech, not school control,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Redondo Beach, California Daily Breeze, 04/27/21
  • “In Tinker case, SCOTUS should rule in favor of free speech, not school control,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Redlands, California Daily Facts, 04/27/21
  • “In Tinker case, SCOTUS should rule in favor of free speech, not school control,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Inland Valley, California Daily Bulletin, 04/27/21
  • “In Tinker case, SCOTUS should rule in favor of free speech, not school control,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Pasadena, California Star-News, 04/27/21
  • “In Tinker case, SCOTUS should rule in favor of free speech, not school control,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Whittier, California Daily News, 04/27/21
  • “SCOTUS Should Clarify Tinker in Favor of Free Speech, Not School Control,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 04/27/21
  • “SCOTUS Should Clarify Tinker in Favor of Free Speech, Not School Control,” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 04/29/21
  • “SCOTUS should clarify Tinker case in favor of free speech,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Millbury, Ohio Press, 04/30/21
  • “Supreme Court must protect students’ free speech rights,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Kingsport, Tennesse Times News, 05/03/21
  • “SCOTUS Should Clarify Tinker in Favor of Free Speech, Not School Control,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 05/03/21
  • “SCOTUS should clarify Tinker-vs-Des Moines in favor of free speech, not for school control,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Havasu City, Arizona News-Herald, 05/14/21