On Feb. 21, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in the Hosty v. Carter case on college media censorship, brought by student journalists at Governors State University (GSU) against Dean Patricia Carter.
As a result, the ruling the journalists sought to appeal will stand. This 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision essentially gives public college administrations the ability to dictate whether or not a publication is a public forum, and accordingly whether or not it can be censored.
Though only applicable within in the court's jurisdiction of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, the circuit court's ruling has raised the hackles of free-speech organizations nationwide.
Such organizations argue free-speech standards are being compromised, and that the ruling marks the beginning of a disturbing trend towards increased college censorship, while other individuals doubt the case will have much effect on college media.
In the Hosty v. Carter case, student journalists Margaret Hosty, Jeni Porche and Steven Barba sued the school after Carter demanded that issues of the school's paper, the Innovator, be pre-approved by the administration before
publication.
The administration's decision was made despite GSU's policy stating that "[students] will determine content and format of their respective publications without censorship or advance approval."
GSU is a small institution in the suburbs of Chicago, Illinois that serves mainly older commuter students. Its administration's demand came after the Innovator published articles and editorials critical of the school's administration.
The administrators countered that the articles in the semi-monthly, fledgling paper were unfair.
They cited examples of conflicts of interest and breaches in journalistic integrity within the paper.
Indeed, an independent review of the case conducted by the Illinois College Press Association and cited by the Chronicle of Higher Education found fault not only with the administration's response, but also with the student journalists' practices.
Hosty, for example, aired editorial opinions as part of a news article critical of English professor Rashidah Jaami' Muhammad's teaching. The article did not mention that Hosty was a student in the English department.
Hosty, then-vice-president of the Student Senate, also wrote a column about the senate that did not indicate she was a part of the organization.
An Illinois appeals court initially found in the students' favor, asserting that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier did not represent an appropriate standard of censorship for college publications. (The Hazelwood decision limited the First Amendment rights of high school student journalists.)
But Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan subsequently filed a petition for the case to be retried before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the case garnered greater attention when Illinois Attorney General James Ryan successfully argued before the state appeals court that the 1988 US Supreme Court decision in Hazelwood should be applied in the case.
While this district court did not make any definitions about the rights of college journalists, it marked the first time that the Hazelwood decision had been applied to a university.
The Hazelwood ruling granted a high schools power to limit publication of material it finds incompatible with its educational goals if the publication in question has not been established as a public forum.
This decision means that college publications are subject to administrative oversight unless they are determined to be "designated public forums" - a status not necessarily granted solely on the basis of a publication's status as a student organization.
Following this decision, the students filed a petition for a writ of certiorari that would allow their case to be tried before the Supreme Court. Their petition was denied.
David Carlson, president of the Society for Professional Journalists (SPJ), expressed displeasure at the 7th Court of Appeals decision and said that his organization considers college publications to be a training ground for future professional journalists, and that he is opposed to censorship in any form.
"One of the things SPJ is doing, is that we have developed a statement to circulate among universities to call [college newspapers] public forums," Carlson said. "The real solution to all this is that college media ought to be independent of the university, and then it's a moot point."
The Student Press Law Center (SPLC) responded in a similar manner.
"We are urging student journalists to ask their school administrator to immediately adopt a statement that recognizes campus student news organizations are designated public forums," SPLC Executive Director Mark Goodman wrote on the organization's Web site.
As far as the significance of the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case, Jerome Barron, a professor at the George Washington University Law School who specializes in First Amendment issues, said that the denial of the writ of certiorari "has no significance whatsoever."
He added that "one should not conclude that they agree or disagree with the ruling."
Barron emphasized that over 7,000 petitions for appeal are made each year to the Supreme Court and less than 150 are generally granted. The Supreme Court, he said, only take on issues of the greatest national importance.
He said that he is not familiar with the details of the case but that the proposed administrative review of the Innovator can be considered prior restraint - and that "prior restraints are generally invalid under the First Amendment."
The fact that the Innovator is not independent of GSU means that the university technically fulfills the role of publisher, and this suggests that they may have the final say on matters of content.
According to Barron, "the First Amendment, like all the constitutional guarantees, run to government and government institutions," and a public university, unlike a private institution, is bound to uphold free speech.
The Hazelwood standard introduces exceptions to this principle.
Jeff Katzin, senior and president of the Tufts Community Union Senate, said that "if students were to say that there is censorship on campus we would consider hearing the resolution."
He made it clear that "just because something is an issue we don't necessarily discuss it."
He believes only issues that directly affect Tufts' student life should be heard before the senate, and he said that the senate would not consider introducing a resolution to explicitly declare Tufts publications as designated public forums.
The Daily would not be subject to this type of censorship due to its financial independence from the University.
