Page4 SMALLTALK November22,1991
Unpopular Opinions And
The College Press
by Caroline F. Kearns
First Amendment rights of college students to enjoy free speech and freedom of
the press have historically been challenged by college administrators. But ever since
the early 1970s, the trend has been toward greater legal protection of the college stu
dent's First Amendment rights.
In 1973, for instance, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (whose jurisdiction
North Carolina falls within) in Joyner v, Whiting ruled that "if a college has a student
newspaper, its publication cannot be suppressed because college officials dislike its
editorial comment." The court went on to say that college officials cannot censor con
stitutionally-protected expression by such means as suspending editors, suppressing
circulation, requiring prior approval of controversial articles, or withholding the finan
cial support of a student publication.
A similar appellate court ruling was handed down in 1983 when the University of
Minne.sota w'as ordered to return funds it had withheld from its student newspaper, the
Minnesota Daily. These funds were derived from student activity fees and made up
about 14 percent of the paper's income. The funds had been withheld because of stu
dent indignation and statewide complaints resulting from a "finals edition" that at
tacked religion, race, and reason through what the paper called an exclusive interview
with Jesus Christ. Kate Stanley, the first editor of five involved in the case, expressed
these sentiments concerning the issues involved:
"I've come to think that student newspapers are the First Amendment's best de
fenders. Who else is willing to test the amendment's boundaries so regularly and so
vigorously? A good student newspaper is invariably eccentric. Objectivity and fair
ness are not its first concerns, nor should they be. It has a larger task; mocking the
mighty, questioning convention, challenging orthodoxy. It takes risks no professional
newspaper would take. Its obstinacy is a reminder that press responsibility is not a
precondition for press freedom."
Perhaps Ms. Stanley should have used the term "good taste" rather than responsi
bility. It is certainly true that student editors should be responsible enough to refrain
from publishing material that is libelous, obscene, or that may incite violence, but it is
also important that it remain a vehicle for the free expression of unpopular opinions.
More recently-just last month in fact-a federal district judge upheld the First
Amendment rights of students at the University of Wisconsin by striking down its
two-year-old "hate-speech code" which prohibited the publication of derogatory racist
or sexist language in a college paper. The suit was filed by the American Civil Liber
ties Union on behalf of one of the school's student newspapers and several students.
In this case, the judge stated: "Content-based prohibitions such as that in the U'W
rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the screening which our Constitu
tion demands." A similar speech code was struck down in 1989 at the University of
Michigan.
Further protection of student speech is currently being considered in Congresj.
The Collegiate Speech Protection Act of 1991 was introduced in March by Represen-
Uiiive Henry H. Hyde of Illinois. If passed, the bill would give college students the
right to file lawsuits challenging even such hate-speech codes. Freedom of the college
press is likely to become nearly absolute.
Our First Amendment freedoms of speech and press provide us with the open ex
change of opinions and ideas necessary for maintaining our democracy, so it is imper
ative that these opinions be protected regardless of how extreme they may be. It was
Oliver Wendell Holmes who said, "If there is any principle of the Constitution that
more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free
thought—not free only for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought we
hate. Undoubtedly, college students should enjoy the same freedoms on campus that
are guaranteed to all citizens.
(The information on cases and legislation in this editorial was excerpted from:
Mass Communications Law: Cases and Comment by Donald M. Gillmor, Jerome A.
Barron, Todd F. Simon, and Hertert A. Terry, 1990; Mass Media Law by Don R.
Pemter, 1990; "Ivory Power" by Jonathan Rauch in The New Republic, May 6, 1991;
and "Hate-Speech Code at U. of Wisconsin Voided by Court" by Michele N-K Colli-
son in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 23, 1991.)
God Talk
by Rev. Carrie W. Parrish
W. H. Auden, in a book entitled For The Time Being, wrote these words:
"The distresses of choice are our chance to
be blessed."
This is an interesting way to look at the matter of free will. Our tendency may be
to see choice-making as a right-full of excitement and abandon. We find nothing dis
tressing, at least initially, about exercising our rights. And we may not give too much
thought to the possibility that our lives might be blessed or cursed by the choices we
make.
The freedom lo make choices is itself a blessing. One of the first comments stu
dents make when they arrive on the college campus is, "I am so glad I finally get to
make my own decisions, do what I want to do, and be responsible for myself."It can
be a great joy to look at options, evaluate courses of action, and choose which course
one will follow.
But it is important for us to remember that making choices can be distressing.
Not all issues are as easily decided as "where to gp tonight for pizza,". Spme deci
sions are life-changing. We get away from home and decide for ourselves Kpw miich-
-or how little--we will study. If we make the wrong choice, we flunk out. We also
make our own choices about using alcohol. If we make the wrong choice, we get hurt,
or we hurt someone else. We make our own choices about being sexually active. If
we make the wrong choices, for all the wrong reasons, we may pay the price in one or
more ways: the loss of self-respect, a pregnancy which neither the male nor female in
volved wants, the contracting of a sexually-transmitted disease, the emotional struggle
inevitable empty and hurt feeling that can be ex
perienced in a relationship withm which sexual activity took place.
wrestle choice-making can bless our lives. When we
tr^choice- -hat feels like the
other chemical !iih«t i ^ alcohol and
other chemical substances alone. We can agree not to "drink and drive" We can de-
cide tli0t it is rc3lly dirisht to "Just qhv TMni'" »
can feel onnd „ i mvolvement. and we
can teel good about ourselves, our reputation, our maturity.
mayftcrsom'e choice-making tha't 'each of us
Z r^ememLr that
over the big decisions and mrefherVhUhofceT
Ood's grace is a.ailable to
decide wronelv It ic i u i to forgive us when we
choose wisely the next time ^ ^ through the process and be better able to
thZ foTyou God's grace is
Ha., „ good w,dn,sdo,, o, I PM,
Come by my office and let's visit - anytime!
Grace and Peace.
Carrie - Campus Minister