MEDIA - LOOKING GLASS NEWS | |
Freedom of Repression |
|
by John K. Wilson In These Times Entered into the database on Tuesday, July 12th, 2005 @ 07:40:17 MST |
|
For almost five years, the Innovator newspaper at Governors State University has
been absent from the suburban Chicago campus, banished by the administration's
demands for prior approval of its content. After a June 20 decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Innovator
may never be seen again--and many other campus newspapers may join it on the
list of publications censored or eliminated for questioning the status quo.
The decision in Hosty v. Carter demonstrates the threat that right-wing judges
pose to freedom of expression in America. The majority opinion, written by conservative
judge Frank Easterbrook and supported by other conservative justices such as
Richard Posner, is a classic example of judicial activism. Easterbrook's convoluted
opinion abandons well-established precedents supporting the free expression
rights of college students, and gives college administrators near-absolute authority
to control the content of student newspapers. The facts of the Hosty case are particularly appalling. On November 1, 2000,
Governors State Dean Patricia Carter called the Innovator's printer, attempting
to stop the publication of the newspaper. When she discovered that she was too
late, she ordered the printer to give her future newspapers before they were
printed so that she could approve content. Two days later, the president of
the university wrote a campus-wide memo denouncing the Innovator because of
its coverage of the firing of the newspaper's advisor (who later won an award
for wrongful dismissal). Editor-in-Chief Jeni Porche and managing editor Margaret
Hosty fought back, refusing to accept the administration's demands for censorship. Easterbrook built his logic upon the Supreme Court's 1988 Hazelwood case, which
gave high school principals limited authority to control newspapers created
in the classroom. Hazelwood has had a disastrous impact, supporting censorship
of the student press. The Hosty decision not only applies Hazelwood to college
students, but greatly expands the scope of censorship to cover any newspaper
or, potentially, any activity subsidized with student fees. The Hosty case is only part of the growing conservative attack on freedom of
speech on campus. An alternative newspaper at the University of Wisconsin at
Eau Claire was denied funding in 2005 because the student government thought
it was too "political." Arizona's state budget for next year includes
a ban on state appropriations for college student newspapers after a campus
sex column offended legislators. And David Horowitz's Academic Bill of Rights has been introduced as legislation
in more than a dozen state legislatures; some versions of the bill would compel
grievance procedures at all public (and even private) colleges to enable students
to start investigations against professors who express political views or who
assign reading lists deemed "too liberal." Horowitz has even threatened
to sue Lehigh University after it allowed Michael Moore to speak on campus last
fall, claiming that this violated the school's nonprofit status. But the Hosty decision is so extreme in denying student liberties that even
conservatives are worried. Charles Mitchell, a program officer at the right-leaning
civil liberties group Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, noted,
"Hosty will give college administrators yet another excuse to indulge their
taste for squelching speech--and that's never a good thing for liberty." Although the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals only covers Illinois, Wisconsin and
Indiana, the decision will enable administrators across the country to censor
papers without penalty. Under the "qualified immunity" standard, state
officials are only liable for violating constitutional rights when the law is
clear, and the Hosty decision raises serious doubts about whether college students
have any rights. And if administrators can legally treat college students the
same as elementary school students, what will happen to academic freedom? The Society for Professional Journalists (SPJ) president Irwin Gratz said,
"It is a sad day for journalism in the United States." The SPJ and
dozens of journalism groups joined an amicus brief in the case, urging the 7th
Circuit to defend freedom of the press on campus. "My co-plaintiffs and I are resolved to appeal to the nation's highest
court," said Hosty. |