Yes, non-independent student newspapers can be censored
When the founders scribed into the First Amendment a free press, I somehow doubt they meant to suggest that the press ought to operate for free.
Yet, the students of Governors State University in Illinois seem to have trouble piecing that bit of information together.
The school's former student newspaper, despite being reliant on school funding, got into a bit of a tiff with the administration. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported last summer:
The student newspaper at Governors State, The Innovator, printed articles that attacked the integrity of a dean. When the newspaper declined to retract statements the administration deemed false or print its responses, Patricia Carter, dean of Student Affairs and Services, told the printer not to produce any issues she had not approved in advance. The editorial staff refused to submit to prior review, and publication ceased.
To me, despite being the editor of a student newspaper, this issue is frightfully clear. With funding comes strings; students do not have an absolute right to take taxpayers' money and use it to go off to libel, mislead or even, in some cases, offend. It is one thing to advocate for free speech – which is something I have been doing a lot of lately – it is altogether another to advocate for free speech when the government is being billed. As the same Journal Sentinel article quoted me as saying:
Mac VerStandig, editor of The Badger Herald at UW-Madison, said organizations that accept funding from their university shouldn't complain.
"Everyone has the right to speak, but not everyone has the right to be heard," VerStandig said. "It's hypocritical to say 'We're going to take your money but not deal with the consequences.'"
Thankfully, this case is finally over with. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the entitlement-greedy students over the summer and just this week the Supreme Court of the United States rejected certiorari, effectively ending the drama.
But apparently the students down at Governors State University are having some difficulty understanding this weighty concept of not biting the hand that feeds you (especially if you are incapable of feeding yourself). And, thus, as the Student Press Law Center is reporting:
Two days after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Hosty v. Carter, the Student Press Law Center has learned the university where the case began is facing a lawsuit from another set of student journalists.
Two former student editors of the Phoenix, Governors State University’s current student newspaper, have sued administrators there claiming First Amendment and other violations.
The students, former Phoenix Editor in Chief Stephanie Blahut and former Phoenix copy editor David Chambers, filed the lawsuit in federal court in August, claiming Governors State administrators were behind a move that put a faculty member in the editor in chief position at the student paper, according to the lawsuit. Blahut and Chambers also claim a photographer for the paper was barred by a campus police officer from taking pictures at a commencement ceremony, among other charges.
And people wonder why the court system is so weighted down.
11 Comments:
Well put. Free speech gives you the right to say things - not to make other people buy your bullhorn.
The upshot of this is that it provides an incentive for student papers to get off the university dole and go independent.
Ah, I remember covering that story as one of my first pieces with the Herald as a frosh cub reporter...about time it concludes.
To bad they haven't censored your blogs yet.
I am sure people like minded will eventually shut those down as well...
By your principle, "he who pays the piper calls the tune," universities could also ban campus speakers they don't like that receive student funds. And universities could also ban professors from saying controversial things, since they pay their salaries. And since the public pays for colleges too, politicians could fire professors at will, too. Are you sure you want to endorse this principle?
Yes.
Perhaps you did not study, or did not learn, the precepts of professional journalism in this country, but it is obvious that you have not read the case Hosty v. Carter, or even the related articles published about the case, which can be found all over the web, by the way. If you did, you did so with a jaundiced eye. Keep that in mind as you read further.
When enrolling at a university or college, you, like every other student, sign an enrollment form, which is, strictly interpreted, like Justice Scalia would do, a legally binding contract. When that university issues a handbook that states with particularity the rights and responsibilities of the student body, that also is a legal document. What you obviously have failed to appreciate is that at GSU, the student handbook specifically states that the MANDATORY student activity fees are to be used to support the student activities, including, but not limited to, the student newspaper. That translates in legal language to the students paying for the ENTIRE support of the student newspaper. The taxpayers you would be referring to are actually the students themselves, who, incidentally, at this particular university, are ENTIRELY composed of taxpaying ADULTS! So when you mention 'strings', you do so in ignorance of the facts of the particular situation at GSU, and in fact, at many other institutions. Who, then, do you think actually pays for the paper? The students at GSU, of course! Just because the university collects the money does not entitle them to prior restraint. On the contrary, anyone doing their due diligence research on Supreme Court cases involving student journalistic freedoms will find that the past thirty years have shown the Supreme Court coming down on the side of the students rights as consistently as is possible. This latest decision is an aberration, and one that may soon be rectified by other cases now in progress in the Courts of the 7th Judicial Circuit. Ultimately, however, it is not those of you who pontificate who will have the last word - it is someone with the tenacity and integrity of a Margaret Hosty who will overcome this judicial hurdle.
As anyone reading this can now deduce, when I said that if you read about the case, you did so with a jaundiced eye, I was referring to yellow journalism. This occurs when a journalist (or a wanna-be) reports 'the news' without doing their due diligence. This, in the legal community, is a required part of all research, as it is in the journalism community. When you report your opinion without researching your facts, your end up marginalizing the issues, and subjugating your readers to an attack of ego. Shame on you.
This is unacceptable behavior, and in the legal profession would get you fired so fast. In your case, you pontificate as though you knew what the circumstances were, when it is obvious from a careful reading of the case, or even for that matter, an article by FIRE or the SPLC, that the most average of readers would calculate your rant as just that - a rant. By an uninformed, opinionated, cigar-chomping egotist. Sorry, but you are NO journalist. Not even Walter Jacobsen, early in his career, was that bad. When he reported that the Mayor of Chicago was having his apartment painted at taxpayer expense by city work crews, he was vilified in the media when it was found out that, in fact, the Mayor was merely having his front door locks replaced, and the door needed repainting. All legally acceptable behavior by a mayor. But Walter couldn't be bothered to wait around to get the real story - when he was told that the Mayor was unavailable for comment at the time, he went ahead and published his story anyway.
My point is this: you can rant all you want, just don't give the impressionable youngsters (you may be read by) misleading information disguised as the truth. That would get you a reputation you would regret for a lifetime. Walter Jacobsen survived: but remember this: at the time he was earning $1,000,000.00 a year to report the news - the Mayor was being paid only $84,000.00 a year to run the city of Chicago. Does that seem fair to you? Of course the television networks (you remember them don't you?) at the time couldn't very well fire a guy they were paying that kind of cash to without great embarrassment, but I think you get my point, eh?
The politics of journalism can come back to bite you, so beware of your tactics, and make sure your practices are always above reproach, lest you reap the whirlwind of backlash.
Here are some helpful links to get you started:
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring03/Dyal/
http://blackinformant.com/index.php?p=756
http://www.rastko.org.yu/kosovo/istorija/ccsavich-propaganda.html
Oh, and let's just see how bad it is with you. I want to know if you have the cojones to publish this on your page, or if you will wuss out and just delete it, while grumbling and muttering to yourself. Alternatively, you may just be so convinced of your righteousness that you will actually forego the required reading of the cases, and just respond, as in shoot from the hip. That does seem to be your style, anyway. Good luck trying and trying, and trying to find a real job in journalism (or keeping one!).
Signed,
David Chambers
Another litigant in the legal war on students' rights
"To me, despite being the editor of a student newspaper, this issue is frightfully clear. With funding comes strings; students do not have an absolute right to take taxpayers' money and use it to go off to libel, mislead or even, in some cases, offend. It is one thing to advocate for free speech ? which is something I have been doing a lot of lately ? it is altogether another to advocate for free speech when the government is being billed."
First of all, the definition of libel is as follows: "A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation."
With that being said, you ought to be careful when blogging about inaccuracies. With regard to the Hosty case, the journalists maintained that they had the documentation to prove their claims true. If the reporters were in possession of such documentation, then the articles were not libelous.
Second, the taxpayers did not pay my student activity fee money - I did. Where you get your misinformation is beyond me. Perhaps you should actually investigate these hypotheses before passing them off as truths. That would be responsible journalism.
Mandatory Fees at GSU:
Counseling and Career Services Fee $26
Student Center Fee $26
Computer Technology Fee $26
Strategic Academic Fee $11
Student Activity Fee $32
The GSU handbook states: "The student activity fee is $32 per trimester. The fee supports programs and activities to enrich the extracurricular life of students. Some of the programs and activities receiving funding support are the Smart Start Center which offers child care, the student newspaper, entertainment and educational events, student clubs and organizations, the Student Senate, student leadership development, diversity observance events, and the Safe Ride shuttle."
According to GSU's handbook, student fee money is used for student life activities and services (including the newspaper). Where in the information I have provided (from the GSU website) does it say that the Illinois taxpayers pay for the student newspaper?
In my opinion, those willing to pay twice for the same service are really the ones getting ripped off. I suppose it's easier to just fund an "independent" newspaper, rather than stand up for your rights. However, when you think about it, do those people still pay their 'mandatory student fees,' as well as fund their own newspaper? Sounds an awful lot like paying twice for the same service. Would you purchase an item and pay twice? Would you pay for a car twice?
One last point I would like to make is that of "biting the hand that feeds me." If your employer does not pay you according to their contractually agreed upon salary stipulations, do you simply stick your head in the sand until it blows over? Like most working class people in this country, I pay bills. If my employer withholds my paycheck, I cannot pay those bills. Should I simply let it blow over because he is the "hand that feeds me?" I feed myself by showing up to work and giving 100%.
Dear David Chambers,
As a "litigant in the legal war on students' rights", it would serve you well to refrain from being an asshole. You certainly made some good points, but your overbearing prickishness kills your message.
You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Thank you Mark, for your insightful commentary. I entirely agree with your characterization of my approach in my last entry. Please forgive my temporary lapse into 'prickishness.' I was, however, so pissed off that I should have waited a day before writing. Furthermore, I shall, in the future be mindful of your advice, and keep the a--hole side of my personality under wraps.
Well Mark, I can't say that David hasn't heard that before.
:)
At least his intentions to inform people are genuinely honorable.
Thank you for taking the time to read the comments and consider the information given in them.
Mac,
From the very subhead of your blog title, I know I cannot trust you as an editor.
"Musings from a college student with one foot firmly planted in politics and the other deeply entrenched in journalism."
This tells me that I am dealing with a writer in the throes of a confilct-of-interests, because he seems to be continually dancing from one foot to other. We need journalists whose interests are 100% behind journalism.
Your title "Right Side of the Road" suggests that your brand of news is culled with bias, and not representative of the entire culture of the United States or your readership.
And this article, bias to say the least, shows clearly that it is off-the-cuff. Having failed to collect enough research, you can only provide reactionary bravado.
News should not be reactionary. News does not validate. News does not tell you what you already know.
Mac, I invite you to put your money where your mouth is, and allow your newspaper to be regulated by democratic vote. Let your readers guide your decisions on content and management. Let them decide your scope and direction. Think about it and you will see, that if your paper is not run democratically, then your are standing against them, not with them.
I'm apoligetic, however, that I have to burn these bridges with you. However, it does not seem like you've understood a single lesson that the history of journalism seeks to provide. I would like to have a few copies of your paper, so I may judge for myself if you have poisoned your newspaper with what you have in this blog. I would ask you to provide me with contact information to your newspaper, so that I can submit a letter to the editor through proper channels, once I have my findings.
Jedediah Walls
Editor
The Preface
Indiana University South Bend
574/520.4325
Post a Comment
<< Home