October 10, 200;
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 9 • Friday, October 10, 2003
on
t issues
r have a lecturer who’s
u’re assigned to reader
professor who actually
fees, would you rather
more and know the bus
get out of class? Wi
in the weight bench or
will be available?
rrified by cuts of fund-
zations, while for oth-
Is. Some don’t under-
would be horrified if
t value keeping a eer
ie student working late
e discussions, we each
of each and every
VI.
nd suggestions. Come
resentation. Do some
f your student organi-
you leave your resi-
tudent Governmental
e information on its
le-E!,” tuition will be
anuary, but by being
will happen after that.
Student Body President
Matt Josefyhn
eniar accounting major.
e? If your argument
University spending
on actions that you
s you stated, then
otests to the heads
d stop trying to force
deals.
Aaron Wilkinson
Class of 2007
RGE
VERS
/r\
ieme party
paradise
3
EDITORIAL
Free press
Rights worth fighting for
On January 8, 2004, all members of the 7th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals will hear a case that could set a precedent to
put complete control of The Battalion in the hands of Texas
A&M President Robert M. Gates. That is, if Illinois Attorney
General Lisa Madigan has her way in the Hosty v. Carter case,
according to the Student Press Law Center.
As of now courts have consistently held that members of the
college press have strong First Amendment rights. University
officials can only censor student media if they suspect signifi
cant and imminent physical harm. This was not present in the
Hosty v. Carter case. To change this precedent, and give control
of print media such as the student newspaper to a university’s
administration would be akin to giving editorial control of The
Washington Post to the president.
College students across the country must prevent this from
happening.
Governors State University Dean Patricia Carter and the
state of Illinois are attempting to apply a previous case giving
school principals final say over student expressive activi
ties to higher education.
If the state succeeds, the decision will not only affect student
newspapers, but any school-sponsored expressive activity within the
circuit’s jurisdiction. The constitutional freedoms allowing students
to choose public speakers or theater shows will be restrained.
University officials would have final say on every expressive activi
ty it sponsors, which should not be allowed to happen.
College students are adults, and to try to limit their First
Amendment rights as if they were 15-year-olds is insulting.
Colleges are supposed to prepare students for real life, but they
cannot do that if colleges attempt to stifle student expression
they may not agree with.
THE BATTALION
EDITORIAL BOARD
Editor in Chief
Managing Editor
Opinion Editor
Metro Editor
Sommer Hamilton
Elizabeth Webb
Jenelle Wilson
Sarah Szuminski
Metro Asst.
Member
Member
Member
C.E. Walters
Collins Ezeanyim
Matt Maddox
Matt Rigney
The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 200 words or
teand include the author’s name, class and phone number. The opinion editor
reserves the righi lo edit letters for length, style and accuracy. Letters may be sub
mitted in person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may
be mailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University, College
Slation, TX 77843-111 1. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcalltffithebattalion.net
Prior restraint
Illinois case may limit students’free expression rights
JENELLE
WILSON
O n June 25, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals granted a request by the
Illinois Attorney General’s office to
vacate the unanimous April Hosty v. Carter
decision by a three-judge panel, which upheld
the free press rights of college students. Hosty
v. Carter involves the attempts of Governors
State University Dean of Student Affairs and
Services Patricia Carter to restrain what the
school newspaper could print. The 7th Circuit
will rehear the case en banc — by all the
judges of the circuit court — early next year.
The outcome of this case could have important and far-
reaching consequences for how college students and their con
stitutional rights — especially First Amendment rights — are
treated, and students need to follow this case closely. A ruling
against the students in the case would demote all of the college
students in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin to nothing more
than glorified high schoolers. It -
would also provide a precedent
for other circuit courts to hand
down similar decisions. Jjf'
According to the April
three-judge decision, in
the fall of 2000, Carter A
twice contacted the
printer of the paper, Am
Charles Richards,
and informed him
that the paper’s content
had to be reviewed by a
school official before it was
printed. These instructions
were in direct conflict with
the Student
Communications Media
Board’s policy that guar
anteed the student staff
would be the sole determi- |
nant of the paper’s content i
“without any censorship or
prior approval.’’ Richards,
in turn, contacted the edi
tors of the Innovator to
inform them of his conversa
tions with Carter.
And, as Circuit Judge Evans
wrote in April, “sparks were
ready to fly.”
Student journalists initially sued
17 university officials, but all of the
cases, except that against Carter, were dis
missed. The case now rests on whether Carter is
protected by qualified immunity. Carter is
entitled to immunity if she did not know
her actions were illegal, meaning if col
lege students’ First Amendment rights to the freedom of the
press were not clearly established. Carter is relying on 1988’s
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier to show these rights
are not .
Hazelwood granted high school principals prior restraint
over school newspapers and student expression. The Supreme
Court found that “educators do not offend the First Amendment
by exercising editorial control over the style and content of stu
dent speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as
their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical
concerns.” And because the decision reiterates that the rights of
students in public school “are not automatically coextensive
with the rights of adults in other settings,” Carter argues that
this precedent limits the rights of college students in public
schools as well.
The three-judge panel rightly and unanimously declared that
this argument “defies existing, well-established law,” and the
panel en banc should do the same.
It’s ridiculous to imply that students in high school and col
lege are the same. In the April decision, Evans wrote, “The differ
ences between a college and high school are far greater than the
obvious differences in curriculum and extracurricular activities.”
College students are more mature than high school students and,
most importantly, most college students are adults. The amicus
brief submitted in the case by the U.S. Census Bureau shows that
only 1 percent of American college students are under 18 and 55
percent are 22 or older. College students are not just those start
ing out in life; they can also be grandmothers, veterans and
retirees who have decided to go back to school.
As adults, college students are entitled to the same constitu
tionally guaranteed rights as other adults, which is why every
time the government has sought to have Hazelwood applied to
college students, it has been rejected. It must be rejected in this
case as well.
It is also ridiculous to equate a high
school newspaper with that of a college
newspaper. The newspaper in
Hazelwood was part of an actual
class. Its yearly circulation was
4,500 issues and the yearly
printing expenses totaled
less than $5,000 during the
1982-1983 school year,
when the events of the
case took place. In con
trast, in 1982-1983
v The Battalion, a
professional
student
W : newspaper,
Jr had a daily
/ - circulation of
jf / around 17,000
/ with a budget of
$750,000 a year.
Hosty, however,
does not apply only to
collegiate newspapers.
The Hazelwood case
allowed school officials to regu
late any “school-sponsored expres
sive activities,” meaning student-
selected speakers, films, theater and
even student government can be cen
sored, according to the Student Press
Grade Arebas • THE BATTALION Law Center.
Inarguably, college is distinguish
able from high school. College students are adults and are enti
tled to the same rights as other adults, which include freedom of
the press and expression. In the early proposed amendments for
the Bill of Rights, James Madison wrote that the freedom of the
press — “the great bulwarks of liberty” — are inviolable. This
should not change just because people are in college.
Jenelle Wilson is a senior
political science major.
99
Ml.”
k Prairie
Rock Prairie
680-050S
Yell leaders decide
which yells to use
In response to Collins Ezeanyim’s
Oct. 1 column:
A few questions to consider for
one who is critical of the yell "Sky
Rocket:" What defines a tradition?
Can one decide not to encourage a
tradition because it is not well
known? And finally, should our yell
leaders be responsible for third
party information?
A tradition to me is something that
has historical value and is repeated
in remembrance of that value.
Specific examples are "The Spirit of
Aggieland," "The Star Spangled
Banner" and "The Pledge of
Allegiance." My argument is sim
ple, just because an individual does
n't know the words to something
doesn’t mean the rest of us should
stop participating.
I am having a hard time under
standing why our elected yell lead
ers should somehow be responsible
for third party companies printing
Aggie yells. I would also like to point
out that our yell leaders were elect
ed by the student body and are sup
ported by former yell leaders. That is
enough for me to be convinced that
bringing back an Old Army Yell is a
good thing, especially with all the
input the yell leaders receive from
the leaders that were here during
the time that the yell was incorporat
ed into the normal routine. At the
last home football game I noticed
there were still some people who
didn't know the words to, and maybe
even some who don't care for the
tune "The Spirit of Aggieland" — I
suppose we should stop singing it
too.
Scott W. Orr
Class of 2005
Bush Award not based
on political views
In response to a Oct. 7 mail call:
In defense of the Bush Presidential
Library Foundation, they award the
George Bush Award for Excellence in
Public Service for "outstanding per
formance that contributions in public
service" and "underscores President
Bush's long service and commitment
to public service."
Clearly, this award is not a popu
larity contest or a political statement
and the underlying point that we
should all recognize is that public
service in government and/or non
profit sectors is about service to our
country regardless of our political
stance. In fact, even that Sen.
Kennedy has been chosen for this
award underscores this point, and
reflects on his many decades of
service to his constituents and the
nation as a whole.
While I would be the last person to
agree with or defend Sen.
Kennedy's political views, I am very
MAIL CALL
appreciative that Former President
Bush can distinguish between rec
ognizing someone for their service
as an elected official or public man
ager and their political views.
Kelley Norton
Graduate Student
Sweatshops bad
aspect of capitalism
In response to a Oct. 8 mail call:
I don't understand how any human
being, even a pure egoist or objec-
tivist, could condone the suffering of
women and children in the despicable
conditions of a sweatshop. Yes, com
panies need to make money and prof
its, but they should be at least a little
altruistic and not cold hearted and
ruthless toward their workers.
I also disagree with the assertion
that since the companies are provid
ing them with jobs, their lives will
automatically be better. Did Mr.
Nichols even read Mr. Steed's article?
It's the work environment, the jobs
themselves, that are the problem.
It could be argued that those work
ers' lives would be better without big
companies: the companies pay
them barely enough to provide for
their families, but that situation is no
different from subsistent farming. So
what kind of good does their cheap
labor produce, other than the fatten
ing of the pockets of greedy capital
ists? Should we leave them to "die a
slow, starving death" in those sweat
shops? No, we shouldn't.
Keisha Hardeman
Class of 2005
Demonstrations show
A&M's intolerance
In response to Sarah Szuminiski’s
Oct. 9 article:
The banners displayed by the YCT
on Wednesday were a sad confirma
tion of this school's deeply-rooted
intolerance. It is no surprise then
that the Princeton Review ranked
A&M as number 12 in "alternative
life styles not an alternative." What
is surprising is that the ranking was
not higher.
Everyone can agree that educa
tion in today's world is supposed to
be globalized and inclusive, but the
atmosphere at this University is not
very conducive to that purpose. If
an education is supposed to include
learning to co-exist with other peo
ple in a respectful manner, then
A&M is sadly not the best place to
get one.
Yes, maybe College Station is its
own little universe where most peo
ple are white, Christian and straight,
but real cities in the real world are
far from being this way. If A&M is
funding "Coming out Week" it is
because it understands that every
thing I said is true, and therefore
something must be done about it.
Carlos Perez
Class of 2007
Program should not
be funded by students
While many were clearly upset at
the Young Conservative display
Wednesday, it should be noted that
many students at this University do
not want Coming Out Week support
ed by student fee money. I agree
that the Young Conservatives should
have found a better way to make
their opinion known, but I am just as
offended by Coming Out Week
being supported by student funds. I
have no hatred or bigotry toward
homosexuals. I simply do not want
my money to go toward funding the
Coming Out Week program.
Byron Moore
Class of 2003
The Battalion encourages letters to the edi
tor. Letters must be 200 words or less and
include the author’s name, class and phone
number. The opinion editor reserves the right to
edit letters for length, style and accuracy. Letters
may be submitted in person at 014 Reed
McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also
may be mailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS
1111, Texas A&M University, College Station,
TX 77843-1111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email:
mailcall@thebattalion.net