SPLC praises appellate court decision
that upholds college press rights
Court says
Governors State cannot order review of newspaper prior to publication, rejects
effort to impose high school-based censorship standard
© 2003 Student Press
Law Center
April 10, 2003
SPLC PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
ILLINOIS
— In a significant victory for student press, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit said today that public colleges and universities cannot ask to
review content in student-edited publications before they are published. In
doing so, the court rejected an attempt by the state of Illinois to impose a
high school-based censorship standard on college student media.
Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, praised the
ruling that he said commandedly reaffirms the last 30 years of college
censorship cases.
"We hope that this ruling will dissuade — once and for all — college officials
who are inclined to censor from engaging in that unconstitutional behavior,"
Goodman said.
This decision follows a similar ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit two years ago.
The case was brought by student journalists at Governors State University after
a school administrator ordered a publishing company in 2000 to refrain from
printing The Innovator student newspaper without first obtaining her
approval of its content. The Innovator has not published an issue since.
In its ruling, the three-judge panel made clear that the constitutional rights
of college student journalists cannot be limited by the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court
decision in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, which significantly restricted the
First Amendment rights of many high school journalists. Under Hazelwood
school administrators can censor high school-sponsored student publications
simply by showing they have a reasonable educational purpose. It is a standard
that provides very little free-speech protection in practice.
The Seventh Circuit said Hazelwood is not "a good fit" for college
students, who it said should continue to receive "broad First Amendment rights."
"The differences between a college and a high school are far greater than the
obvious difference in curriculum and extracurricular activities," Judge Terence
T. Evans wrote for the court. "The missions of each are distinct reflecting the
unique needs of students of differing ages and maturity levels."
Specifically, the issue in front of Seventh Circuit was whether Patricia Carter,
the university's dean of student affairs, could claim qualified immunity,
therefore protecting her from being sued on the grounds that she violated the
students' First Amendment rights when she requested to review and approve the
Innovator prior to printing.
Qualified immunity protects government officials when their conduct does not
violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
reasonable person would have known.
Carter argued that the law was not clearly established for college media partly
because of Hazelwood. The court denied her claim and said she should have
been aware of the many cases over the last 30 years that support college
students' press rights.
"These courts have held that school administrators can only censor student media
if they show that the speech in question is legally unprotected or if they can
demonstrate that some significant and imminent physical disruption of the campus
will result from the publication's content," Judge Evans said.
In its ruling, the court affirmed the order of the district court denying Dean
Carter's request for qualified immunity and returned the case to that court for
further proceedings.
The court commended the "superb amicus brief" filed by attorney Richard
Goehler on behalf of a group of 25 student and professional media organizations
led by the Student Press Law Center. Among other things, the court cited
research in the brief that "only 1 percent of those enrolled in American
colleges or universities are under the age of 18, and 55 percent are 22 years of
age or older."
"Treating these students like 15-year-old high school students and restricting
their First Amendment rights by an unwise extension of Hazelwood," the
court said, "would be an extreme step for us to take absent more direction from
the Supreme Court."
The decision specifically addresses college press and speech rights in Illinois,
Indiana and Wisconsin, the three states that the court oversees, but it could
have an impact nationwide.
For More Information:
Mark Goodman, executive director
Student Press Law Center
703-807-1904
A
copy of the court's decision is available from the Seventh Circuit's Web
site.
Read previous coverage