Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

Court supports college yearbook confiscation in landmark case

U-WIRE

UNDATED - An appeals court in Cincinnati sustained the ability of college administrators to censor student publications Wednesday, when it ruled to uphold Kentucky State University's right to confiscate the school's 1992-94 Thorobred yearbook because of "undisputedly poor quality."

In a major ruling for college journalists, the court found the university's actions "reasonable in light of the yearbook's failure to accomplish its intended purpose," as Sixth Circuit Judge Alan Norris wrote in his decision on behalf of the three-judge panel.

Norris said it was reasonable for the school to want to maintain its image and to confiscate the yearbook to uphold that image. One juror concurred in full, the other concurred in part and dissented in part.

The case involves two former KSU students, Capri Coffer, the yearbook's editor and Charles Kincaid, a member of the school's newspaper and a yearbook purchaser.

Coffer and Kincaid sued the university's vice president for student affairs, Betty Gibson, when she confiscated the yearbooks because of what she called a "vague theme" and the inclusion of photos unrelated to the school community. The adviser of the yearbook at the time, Laura Cullen, was transferred to another position within the university on the day that the yearbooks were received.

The plaintiffs claimed their First Amendment rights were violated. They also said the school breached a contractual relationship because the yearbook was part of a mandatory $80 student activities fee. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants.

Mike Hiestand, staff attorney for the Student Press Law Center, which works with high school and college journalists, said he was outraged by the decision.

"Until yesterday, student newspapers had the same privileges as any other media," Hiestand said. "That's no longer the case. When a school has not said 'You are a public forum,' schools will have to right to censor something."

Hiestand said the ruling was particularly meaningful for schools within the sixth circuit, which represents Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.

"The case presents a 180 degree change from the First Amendment protection (college media) had for over 30 years," he said.

For precedent, the court's ruling relied on Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier, a 1988 Supreme Court decision which upheld censorship of high school media. But Hiestand said there were clear distinctions between the Hazelwood and the Kentucky State case.

"(The Supreme Court) recognized clearly back then that there is a difference between a 16-year-old kid and a college student," he said.

In addition, the newspaper in the Hazelwood case was in effect an administrative publication, where the adviser served as an editor and the principal had prior restraint, said Lillian Lodge Kopenhaven, president of the Association for Education in Journalism in Mass Communication.

Kopenhaven referred to past case law, which said regardless of financial dependence on the university, student media existed as a limited public forum and operated under the full First Amendment protection.

Kentucky State University contends The Thorobred is not a public forum.

"It is simply a means of accurately commemorating student activities and events of the year," Hinfred McDuffie, vice president for university advancement, said in a statement Thursday. "Our student press enjoys the same journalistic freedom enjoyed by other university students and the students at Kentucky State University are encouraged to engage in the discussion of the ideas of the day."

College newspaper editors and advisers said the ruling might change the way they do business and learn about the business.

"Anyone who has been in a school where this power is exercised by the administration is certainly not going to know how to be a journalist," said Candace Perkins Bowen, coordinator of Kent State University scholastic media program. "For one thing they will develop their journalism skills assuming that somebody has to approve what they are saying, an unhealthy attitude to take into the professional world.

"If you think someone is leaning over your shoulder, you're not going to learn to be as responsible. So we're losing from both ends," Perkins Bowen said.

For now, Hiestand said the decision would change how he advises college newspapers on their legal rights.

"It absolutely sickens me that I am now telling college students that they have no First Amendment protection," he said.

Bruce Orwin, who represented the plaintiffs said he will ask the entire appeals court to review the judgment of the three-judge panel and said he expects to request the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.