One of a newspaper's most important functions is to criticize authority when authority needs criticizing. Without the ability to publish controversial material, student papers slide down a slippery slope that leads to outright propaganda.
The censorship of content is nearly always associated with the repression of challenging or contentious material. Those who are most scared of information are those hiding skeletons in their closets.
When the Supreme Court refused to hear a case about the censorship of an Illinois student newspaper, it not only snubbed students as second-class citizens, but also added caveats to the non-discriminatory notion of free speech.
The case evolved when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hold Governors State University Dean Patricia Carter liable for her demand of administration approval of future publications, once the student paper, the Innovator, began printing articles critical of the administration.
When the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal last month, it supported the lower court's ruling that upheld the 1988 Supreme Court Hazelwood decision to limit public high school newspapers' freedom. These types of restrictions have no place in the university domain, and student papers should be allowed the same freedoms, as well as be held to the same standards, as any other paper.
The Court of Appeals refused to sanction Dean Carter because the newspaper was not clearly designated as a "public forum". This vague notion should not be a determinative factor in the freedom of a paper, but should be descriptive of all papers funded with student fees. It is absurd to think that a newspaper must be deemed a public forum by the same administration which has an interest in limiting content.
Furthermore, the court found that Carter was not liable because she could not have reasonably known that her ability to censor the paper was not protected by the Hazelwood decision. A veil of ignorance should not be a defense for Carter; in fact, it only affirms the paper's initial critique of alleged incompetence in the administration.
If student papers are not allowed to voice dissenting opinions, universities will suffer consequences. Not only is any journalistic experience severely handicapped, but the possibilities for dynamic growth and improvement in the student body are limited.
Furthermore, the ability to censor papers sets a precedent for censoring other student activities. The purpose of charging a fee for student-sponsored activities should be to allow students to express their interests in the form of articles, speakers and activities. Once schools start limiting publications, there's nothing to stop them from limiting other events, which would destroy the vibrant intellectual community that universities seek to foster.
