Court rules college journalism should be censored

By Michael Culver
The Collegian

For several years the courts have held that colleges and universities have a great deal of first amendment protection.

Unlike public high schools, college students required less supervision, because the “nature” of learning was significantly different.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decided on June 20 that college newspapers can be censored by their institutions.

This freedom and protection is now being challenged as college students could be monitored with the same scrutiny as high school students.

The decision derived from an issue at Governors State University in Chicago where the college newspaper, the Innovator, printed a series of articles in 2000. University officials became concerned over the articles written by Margaret Hosty in which she attacked the integrity of Roger K. Oden, the dean of arts and sciences.

University president Stuart Fagan called the statements printed in the newspaper, “irresponsible and defamatory.”

Patricia Carter, dean of student affairs called the printer for the newspaper, who is paid by the university, and told the company not to print any more newspapers without their permission.

The university argued in court that calling the printer of the newspaper did not constitute prior restraint, the legal term for censorship.

The university also contended they never actually told anyone not to print or not to publish the paper.

In the opinion written by Justice Frank Easterbrook, the printer was aware of the controversy and was fearful of retribution from the college.

But how much control do universities and colleges have over college newspapers? Is there really a way for student newspapers to have protection from defamation and negligence lawsuits?

And if the school does have rights, where do the courts draw the lines between freedom of speech and censorship?

The court decided that as long as the paper constituted a public forum it could not be censored because the school then had no liability. But if it failed to give a definitive definition as to what constitutes a public forum, censorship would be allowed.

The opinion stated conditions of a public forum – faculty had no say in the decision-making process as to what content gets printed, whether the school paid the staff and funded the paper and whether the class received credit for participation.

Although the court sided against the University, stating the Innovator was considered a public forum, the opinion written by Justice Easterbrook left the door open for judicial interpretation.

The opinion gave officials the ability to interpret the law as they see fit and to deal with the repercussions of their actions if and when they arise.

Will The Collegian be censored? Perhaps not. Should President Welty or any other staff or faculty member have the ability to censor our student newspapers? Absolutely not.

Universities are a place for the free expression of ideas and speech. It is a place where officials should be held accountable for their actions and these actions should be held under the scrutiny of the public.

After all, if they are afraid of the way things are that tells me they have something to hide, something that needs to be exposed.

Comment on this story in the Opinion forum >>