Free speech rights harmed by court decision

WELL, IT’S OFFICIAL. You’ve graduated high school. You’re old enough to vote. And you’re old enough to die for your country.

You’re an adult, and entitled to be treated as one. Right?

Well, not so fast.

On Feb. 21, 2006 the United States Supreme Court announced it will not hear a case involving former student journalists at Governors State University in Illinois. At issue is a June 2005 decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Hosty v. Carter, that provides university administrators the ability to censor public speech by college students and faculty in three mid-western states: Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.

The Hosty decision derived from a series of articles written in 2000 by Margaret Hosty, and published in the college newspaper, The Innovator. GSU officials became concerned over the articles because Hosty attached the integrity of Roger K. Oden, the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.

Patricia Carter, Dean of Student Affairs and Services at GSU called the printer for the newspaper, who is paid by the university, and told him not to print any paper until the students submitted their articles to the administration for prior approval.

In its basic form, the Hosty ruling broke a three-decades-long standing policy that insulated university students from a 1988 standard set in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. The 7th court’s ruling states that free speech at universities can be held to the same censorship scrutiny as high school and elementary schools provided they are not designated a public forum.

Now you might be saying so what. After all, this ruling is only binding in three states.

The problem is a federal law in one district can be used in all districts, even if a federal law in another district is in direct conflict with another federal law. If this conflict comes to a head, it becomes the responsibility of the U.S. Supreme Court to decide, which they have decided not to do at this time.

In a press release, Mark Goodman, executive director of The Student Press Law Center said he was disappointed by the Court’s lack of interest in the case.

Although, as of now, The Collegian is considered a public forum, this may be a token designation.

Theoretically, the CSU administration could challenge this designation, and there is evidence that this may occur.

According to a legislative bulletin by the California Newspaper Publishers Association, “the General Counsel for the California State University system sent a memo to the presidents at each CSU campus that said, “The [Hosty] case appears to signal that CSU campuses may have more latitude than previously believed to censor the content of a subsidized student newspaper, provided that there is an established practice of regularized content review and approval for pedagogical [educational] purposes.” Therefore, if CSU administrators took offense to this article, they could use the 7th court ruling as a catalyst to censor The Collegian. And if The Collegian decided to fight the administration, like the students did in Illinois, it could be years before another edition is published. The Innovator hasn’t been published since the case began five years ago.

But help may be on the horizon. Assembly members Joe Nation (D-San Rafael) and George Plescia (R-San Diego) agreed to author a measure sponsored by the CNPA that would address the situation. AB 2581 would prohibit the censorship of student newspapers at a California college, university or community college.

Therefore, this week I am asking you to send me your comments with the intent of compiling both those in favor of AB 2581 and those opposed. I will then send ALL our collective comments to Nation and Plescia.

And as usual I will print select comments in next week’s column — just send them [email protected].

Comment on this story in the Opinion forum >>