Decision gives colleges ability to limit speech,
Despite court ruling, UWM won't censor students, dean says
Decision gives colleges ability to limit speech
By MEGAN TWOHEY
mtwohey@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Aug. 18, 2005
jsonline.com
When a student newspaper published a review in 2001 that said Jewish producers had caused a "Blitzkrieg" of one-sided movies about the Holocaust as a form of revenge, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee administrators denounced it as repugnant but defended the paper's right to express such views.
Quotable
“It wouldn’t surprise me if the administration used it to pressure us.
- Joe Ahlers,
Editor of UWM’s student newspaper, the Leader
The Leader may not enjoy such a defense should it print a similar article this year.
In June, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled that college newspapers can be subject to the same type of censorship as high school newspapers. The decision, which applies in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, came in a case out of Governors State University in Illinois.
It could affect more than newspapers. Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, said all subsidized college activities involving student speech, such as groups that bring speakers to campus, are subject to censorship unless they can prove they are a public forum, a place or publication for free expression. Jim Hill, dean of students at UWM, said the school has no plans to use the recent ruling to exert more influence over student activities. Joe Ahlers, news editor of the Leader, isn't so sure. The paper has written controversial stories about university officials, including a professor who was convicted of sexual assault. "It wouldn't surprise me if the administration used it to pressure us," he said.
The student newspaper at Governors State, The Innovator, printed articles that attacked the integrity of a dean. When the newspaper declined to retract statements the administration deemed false or print its responses, Patricia Carter, dean of Student Affairs and Services, told the printer not to produce any issues she had not approved in advance. The editorial staff refused to submit to prior review, and publication ceased.
Innovator reporter Margaret Hosty, with the support of numerous journalism organizations, sued Carter, claiming she had violated the reporter's first amendment rights.
Attorneys for the university moved to dismiss the lawsuit, citing, among other reasons, a 1998 U.S. Supreme Court ruling they said gave Carter the right to restrict the Innovator's content.
That case involved a high school newspaper in suburban Hazelwood, near St. Louis, written and edited by a journalism class as part of the school's curriculum. When the principal deleted stories about teenage pregnancy and divorce, students sued, claiming first amendment violations.
The court sided with the principal, who had argued that the pregnancy story was inappropriate for some younger students and that the divorce story named a father who was not given a chance to comment. The majority opinion said a high school may set "high standards for the student speech that is disseminated under its auspices" and refuse to disseminate student speech that does not meet those standards.
The standards, it said, can apply to speech that is grammatically incorrect, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased or unsuitable for immature audiences.
A footnote read: "We need not decide whether the same degree of deference is appropriate with respect to school-sponsored expressive activities at the college and university level."
In the Hosty case, the district judge and a three-judge appellate panel read the Hazelwood case narrowly, limited to high school papers published as part of course work, and refused to dismiss against Carter. But the full appeals court ruled in June that the Hazelwood case could apply to college newspapers.
"There is no sharp difference between high school and college papers" when it comes to a school's right to apply high standards to the student speech disseminated under its auspices, the majority opinion states.
It dismissed Hosty's lawsuit, and said college newspapers can be subject to censorship unless they are a public forum. It suggested newspapers may not be public forums if they receive funding and supervision from their college.
Hosty plans to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the meantime, subsidized college newspapers in the three states should take note that their legal rights may have changed.
"They should no longer assume that they are exempt from censorship," said David Allen, chair of the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication at UWM.
Daily newspapers at UW-Madison and the UWM Post retain stronger first amendment protections because they receive no university funding. But the Leader and student papers at other schools in the UW System do get some university funding, and most of the publications have faculty advisers.
Goodman of the Student Press Law Center said student organizations that show art or film and ones that bring speakers to campus could also be subject to censorship after the Hosty vs. Carter decision, and should pressure administrators to officially recognize them as public forums.
Mac VerStandig, editor of The Badger Herald at UW-Madison, said organizations that accept funding from their university shouldn't complain.
"Everyone has the right to speak, but not everyone has the right to be heard," VerStandig said. "It's hypocritical to say 'We're going to take your money but not deal with the consequences.' " |
