Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
Email: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Wednesday, April 16,2003
r
-Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor:
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Editor:
Salena De La Cruz
Appeals court
ruling limits
academic speech
Guest commentary
A recent case in the Seventh Circuit Court of Ap
peals held that First Amendment law allowing high
school administrators to review and censor student
publications does not apply to college students. Now, a
federal court with jurisdiction over the Western Unit
ed States reached a different result in a similar case,
and the Supreme Court elected two weeks ago not to
review that case.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Uni
versity of California could censor and punish a student
for writing critical comments in the “Acknowledgments”
section of his Masters’ thesis.
A three-judge panel heard the case, and two judges
found that college students had no greater claim to free
speech rights in the curricular context than high school
students. Citing a 1988 Supreme Court case, Hazel
wood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which approved of
censorship of high school papers, the court found that
the personal acknowledgments contained in an aca
demic document are not subject to any First Amend
ment protection.
The case began when Christopher Todd Brown, then a
graduate student at University of California at Santa Bar
bara, inserted a “Disacknowledgments” section after his
thesis had been approved. The section criticized school
officials and then-Califomia Governor Pete Wilson for in
terfering with his education.
Upon discovery of the critical remarks, the committee
revoked its approval of the thesis. Brown was unable to
earn his degree and had to spend another year at UCSB.
Even when Brown removed some of the “offending” lan
guage, the committee still refused to approve it.
Brown contended that the action violated the First
Amendment because school officials retaliated
against him for his criticism. He also argued the uni
versity had singled him out, as numerous other aca
demic papers had been approved containing insults
and vulgarities.
Nevertheless, one judge found for the university be
cause, even though the university had a practice of al
lowing students free reign with regard to statements
made in the “acknowledgments” sections, the univer
sity had the right to treat the section as academic
speech — not entitled to First Amendment protection.
Another judge simply said Brown had engaged in deceit
by not including the offending section his original sub
mission to the committee.
Writing in dissent, Judge Stephen Reinhardt “vehe
mently” disagreed with his colleagues. He noted that the
court had adopted “an erroneous First Amendment stan
dard ... regarding the authority of public universities to
limit the speech of graduate students that I believe to be
wholly inappropriate — a standard that would seriously
undermine the rights of all college and graduate students
attending institutions of higher education.”
While the opinion stressed that it only applied to
so-called “curricular” speech, it's possible that school
officials, at least in some western states, may now be
lieve they can censor school papers, speakers, plays
and the like.
Even as applied to curricular speech, the case spells
the end of student dissent. A student who disagrees
with the views of a professor would have little or no re
course, even if the student could show that the puni
tive action was motivated because of the student’s pro
tected speech.
Harvey Silvergate of the Foundation for Individual
Rights in Education called the decision “outrageous” and
F.I.R.E. appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court,
which denied review several weeks ago.
With an apparent conflict in the circuits over the
means of Hazelwood as applied to college students, the
Seventh Circuit case could be ripe for review.
Robert R. DeKoven is a professor of legal writing at California
Western School of Law in San Diego.
Steve Baggs Emerald
Teams are entitled to share religion
Guest commentary
When I read Mark Weintraub’s
guest commentary on religion and
sports (“Sports, religion connection
fouls out at University,” ODE, April
7), I was appalled at his closed-mind
edness regarding prayer services. In
“God’s Squad?” the author makes it
clear the players enjoy the prayer
services. Also, the pastors, whether
they are sponsored by the school or
not, volunteer their time with the bas
ketball team.
It doesn’t matter “why the pastors
or coaches believe it is appropriate
for an athletic program at a public
university to sponsor religious pro
grams.” What matters is that students
get something out of the program. If
the players “meditated” to chanting
Buddhist monks, I doubt the same
controversy would arise; however, be
cause the pastors offer a place to pray
to the God of Christianity, it is un
constitutional. I believe that the Es
tablishment Clause of the First
Amendment says, “Congress shall
make no law respecting an establish
ment or religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof.” The First
Amendment does not say that free
dom of religion is kept by keeping
people from practicing elements of
their religion in public places, but
that Congress shall make no law pro
hibiting the exercise thereof.
The basketball team, as any sports
team, probably shares a lot more
than religion. They are probably very
good friends — Congress should not
keep students from practicing spiritu
ality with their closest friends. If the
basketball team wants to ask God for
daily guidance in any area of their
life, they should be allowed to.
With Weintraub’s commentary, a
new thought has arisen in my mind:
If “school sponsorship of a religious
message is impermissible because it
sends the ancillary message to mem
bers of the audience who are nonad
herents ‘that they are outsiders, not
full members of the political commu
nity, and an accompanying message
to adherents that they are insiders,
favored members of the political
community,’” then we must proceed
to abolish all clubs, fraternities and
sororities, all ot whom share the posi
tion of “adherents.”
I am part of an audience that deals
with being on the ’’outside” of a sexu
ally driven, alcohol-driven “group”
that is very much “student-run.” It
certainly doesn’t seem as though it is
n’t school sponsored, despite the tech
nicality of having a “dry campus.”
Living in this country is about be
ing able to express your differences,
not being suppressed because of your
differences in order to protect people
who are different from you. The mes
sage sent, as a result of this sports
religion connection Weintraub
speaks of, is that a huge number of
students are Christian and they ap
preciate their right to pray together
when they are together. If some of
the basketball players do not wish to
participate in the prayer services,
they are lucky, because it is their
right not to.
Everyone is there voluntarily, and
those who feel like “outsiders” feel so
voluntarily, as well.
Rosalie Bennett is a sophomore
journalism major.
Bushy Blair can lessen Iraqi fiscal load
Guest commentary
President George W. Bush has an op
portunity to alleviate some of the inter
national tension his stringent Iraq poli
cy has wound up in recent months.
“Rebuilding of Iraq will require the
support and expertise of the interna
tional community,” Bush said on Tues
day, April 9, after a war summit with
British Prime Minister Tony Blair in
Northern Ireland. “We are committed
to working with international institu
tions, including the United Nations,
which will have a vital role to play in
this task.”
While Bush arid Blair’s discussion is
premature — coalition forces continue
to engage in heavy urban fighting in
Baghdad — their shared policy is a
step in the right direction. Bush failed
to outline the particular role of the
United Nations in post-war Iraq, but
his language suggests that he may be
open to a greater U.N. role than previ
ously indicated by U.S. officials.
It is clearly in the best interest of
the United States to allow the United
Nations to play a significant part in
post-war Iraq, beyond just humani
tarian aide and removal of sanctions.
This is a chance for Bush to reestab
lish an international policy toward a
free state of Iraq, thereby attempting
to heal political divides with France,
Germany and elsewhere.
More importantly, a broad U.N. role in
a free Iraq would serve to clarify the
United States’ intentions for the Middle
East region, offering the world a more
benevolent image of a nation it has be
gun to see as a belligerent superpower.
Besides, someone is has to help foot
the bill for reconstruction, which, ac
cording to an April 8 article in the Wall
Street Journal, some experts say could
cost upward of #20 billion per year.
With Bush’s current fiscal policy al
ready drowning in red ink, he can ill
afford to turn down any assistance.
Christopher Arnold is a senior studying
communications.