Administrators can censor the content of student publications at public colleges, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this week.
The 7-4 ruling reversed a lower court's decision which had favored the college journalists. The appellate court ruled that the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, which had previously governed only high school publications, could apply to college journalism as well.
Hazelwood set a precedent for public high school administrators, allowing them to censor a student newspaper if they felt the content presented a threat to the educational environment.
According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the case Hosty v. Carter pitted three student journalists from Governors State University in Illinois against the school's administration. In their lawsuit, Margaret Hosty, Jeni Porche and Steven P. Barba from the student newspaper The Innovator claimed that dean of student affairs Patricia Carter violated their First Amendment rights by ordering The Innovator's printing company not to print their publication until it had been approved by school officials -- a practice referred to as "prior restraint."
Under the law, the students would receive financial damages if they could prove the school infringed on a clearly established right, according to Law Professor Thomas Nachbar.
The lower court had ruled in favor of the GSU students, stating that college journalists are entitled to greater freedoms than their high school counterparts. The Seventh Appeals Court ruling, however, cut down on the latitude of collegiate journalists and argued that it is not clear whether The Innovator qualifies as a public forum and therefore is eligible for protection by the First Amendment.
According to the decision, written by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, "Speech at a non-public forum, and underwritten at public expense, may be open to reasonable regulation even at the college level -- or later."
Furthermore, the Dean did not clearly infringe on the students' rights because the relationship between the school and the newspaper was vague, according to Nachbar.
Officials at Governors State University declined to comment other than to say they are pleased with the Seventh Circuit's decision.
Despite the fact that the court ruled in favor of censoring collegiate publications, the decision will not necessarily apply to colleges in Virginia.
The Seventh Circuit Court "decisions do not bind other circuit courts, like ours, but are considered to be persuasive," Nachbar said."Other than that they've [considered] the problem before, there's no reason to think it would apply here in Virginia."
Though the decision is not widespread, it is still "troubling," according to Mark Goodman, Executive Director of the Student Press Law Center, a non-profit organization that assisted with the lawsuit.
"What it does is make the First Amendment protections historically given to college journalists less certain," Goodman said.
Goodman added that the ruling does not give free reign to administrators in terms of censorship nationwide and expressed his concerns about the preservation of student freedom of speech.
"I do believe what [the decision] does is muddy the waters and raises questions about how much protection students are entitled to," he said.
The students plan to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a press release on the Student Press Law Center Web site.
Read More
Will the Faculty Senate’s no-confidence vote impact the U.Va. Board of Visitors?
By Brandon Kile | 8 hours agoIn many cases, a no-confidence vote may soon be followed by steps taken to remove the leadership that may be acting against the wishes of a community.
Two senior U.Va. Health leaders quietly take new jobs without formal announcement
By Ford McCracken | YesterdayKibbe’s departure marks the end of an ongoing battle between U.Va. Health employees and their senior leadership.
Letter from 12 deans to Board of Visitors goes unanswered for almost two weeks
By Naima Sawaya | YesterdayAt the time of publication, the academic deans had received no response from the Board regarding their offer to meet with the Board “as soon as possible.”
