Beware, ill effects of Kincaid decision could hurt 'U'

It means that, unlike many other campus groups, we are 100 percent self-funded and student run. We accept no money from the University and therefore are able to print whatever we want without the threat of censorship or influence from University administration.

The advantage of a free press is obvious. For us at the Daily, editorial independence is both a blessing and a responsibility. For the past 108 years, we have been able to speak out critically about University policies, civil rights and student issues.

Heather Kamins

Editorial independence has given us a voice on campus and hopefully also provided the entire student body a forum from which to speak out.

But not all campuses are so lucky. In fact, only about a dozen student papers across the country can boast total independence.

The university administrators overseeing these publications rarely attempt to control the editorial content of the product, but when they do the results are appalling and the suppression of free speech is inexcusable.

In the past, courts have traditionally granted student papers the same First Amendment rights as the professional media.

Sadly, though, a recent decision from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has made the situation even more severe. In Kincaid v. Gibson, the court upheld the censorship of the student newspaper and confiscation of yearbooks at Kentucky State University.

The ill effects of the decision threaten the editorial independence and journalistic integrity of college media in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.

The Daily is fortunate to be immune to the majority of potential censorship because of our independent status, but we still cannot ignore its significance.

It is very dangerous.

The court threatens not just campus newspapers but all open expression on campus by basing the ruling on the U.S. Supreme Court's 1988 decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.

In Hazelwood, the court ruled that high school administrators have the right to censor school-sponsored publications for legitimate educational reasons.

Expanding this censorship power to university officials is atrocious. Freedom of speech and a marketplace of ideas is no better justified anywhere than on a college campus where great minds are intended to meet and expand.

While the Daily and other independent campus publications retain editorial control, this decision still could impact distribution rights on campus.

The University of Michigan, or any university, could be given the authority to ban distribution of any publication, including one self-sponsored on campus property. An administration that is unhappy with the content of a publication may need no more justification to knock distribution off campus than for "educational reasons."

Although it seems unbelievable that the University would ever attempt to kick the Daily boxes out of Angell Hall or the MLB, a court case like this gives college administrators free reign to do so.

But wait, it gets worse.

Like I said before, this ruling makes everyone vulnerable, not just student journalists.

Hazelwood has been used to justify the termination of several high school teachers whose lesson plans were disagreeable to school board officials.

In one notable case, Boring v. Buncombe Country Board of Education, a North Carolina court in 1997 upheld the transfer of a drama teacher who allowed her class to put on a play that dealt with controversial social issues including runaways, sexuality and child abuse.

Before producing the play, the teacher had gotten permission from the performers' parents, the school's administration and the parents of the students in the audience, but still the school board objected and ordered that the teacher be moved to another school. And the federal appellate court used Hazelwood to justify it.

It seems hard to imagine this happening in 1999 on the university level, but this most recent legal action makes it possible.

Hopefully, the effects of the Kincaid ruling will not be expanded to control unpopular curriculum or inhibit academic freedom like they have been on the high school level.

Remember, though, university administrators now may have the legal right to stifle contentious viewpoints.

- Heather Kamins can be reached over e-mail at hbk@umich.edu

Kandid Kamins

09-16-99