Rarely do students concern themselves with 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decisions. The pressures of school, distractions of social lives and whirlwind of activity in Madison leave little time to consider the implications of recent court opinions. However, if the 7th Circuit continues to hear cases like Hosty v. Carter, that blissful ignorance will become entirely inappropriate, even impossible. Students at many Wisconsin schools may soon have to join the ranks of their peers at Illinois universities who have suddenly become conscious of the court’s power to disrupt their daily lives.
Why must students incorporate judicial decisions into the jurisdiction of their daily interest? Because the court has recently adopted students into its jurisdiction with its decision in Hosty. In this case, the court, whose jurisdiction spans Wisconsin, Indiana and Illinois, recently heard arguments on behalf of both collegiate journalists at Governors State University in Illinois and their Dean of Student Affairs and Services, Patricia Carter. The dispute concerned the student body at Governors State, but the decision will affect students throughout the 7th’s jurisdiction.
Student editors at Governors State were outraged in 2001 with Dean Carter’s demand they remove articles attacking her credibility. If the paper didn’t agree, it would be denied funding. The students, including Innovator reporter Margaret Hosty, and other journalism organizations quickly filed suit, charging Carter’s actions violated their First Amendment right to free speech. Previously, Dean Carter would have lost her suit based on precedent set by the 1988 case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. In Hazelwood, the court held schools could censure the content of high school newspapers because they had a compelling interest to protect young students from inappropriate content. In a footnote to the decision, college newspapers were spared as the court refused to extend its decision to all student publications, perhaps in hopes of avoiding the controversy that is now stewing across its jurisdiction. With the Hosty v. Carter decision, that loophole has been closed, and college newspapers can no longer expect to slip through speech restrictions.
Constitutional scholars are probably not shocked by the court’s decision. Funding has long been considered a form of speech. Because Governors State provided financial support for its student newspaper, it was constitutionally justified in regulating the speech the paper provided. From a business standpoint, this makes complete sense — who would pay to have him or herself criticized in front of thousands of shareholders or potential customers? However, simply reducing this issue to one of economics and constitutionality is setting the bar at its lowest notch.
There are countless situations where financial empowerment allows one to do something, but restraint is exercised because of a commitment to ethics and the pursuit of social good. This is one of those times. Just like all other journalistic organizations, student newspapers are an essential institution in a healthy democratic population. The students deserve a free flow of information, and Wisconsin journalists-in-training must have the opportunity to provide it. Unfortunately, this system does not exist for free.
We are lucky to have a healthy commercial sector in Madison that buys advertising space in student newspapers. As a result, the student press maintains a level of independence and will remain immune from institutional censorship. Unfortunately for readers elsewhere, many college papers cite university funding as their financial life source. Consequently, their news coverage and editorial boards will be subjected to the censorship discretion of deans and other university faculty.
Besides completely removing important content from this student forum, the delay in reporting could cause salient issues to expire right under the noses of students who think they are gaining prompt and timely information — a tenet of good journalism.
Moreover, many colleges and universities treat their student newspapers as a mechanism for learning about real-life journalism practices and professions. However, the college newsroom of today may become more of a university PR print shop, where content is subjected to extensive editing, cropping and reshaping before it becomes available to its reading public. If this does occur, the papers will face an endemic crisis of legitimacy. Not only will readership drop, but interest in journalism as a career path will deteriorate as students at these universities find themselves without a real medium through which to speak their minds.
Though this decision is firmly grounded in constitutional logic, students and university faculty deserve and should demand more from both their administrations and their student presses. A co-authored, signed agreement or public statement from both parties could help to alleviate the threat from any of the aforementioned issues and ensure that the student press maintains its prestigious and essential place in student life.
Sarah Howard ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and journalism.
