Constitutional Shackles

The Hosty decision generated an immediate response from the collegiate journalism community and its external advocates. Much of this stems from historic precedents that suggest a flawed decision, where Hazelwood was never previously applied to college student media. For instance, in Kincaid v. Gibson (2001), a 6th District decision concerning censorship of a Kentucky State University yearbook and student newspaper explicitly stated that the Hazelwood precedent did not apply at the collegiate level (Goodman 2006). Moreover, the Hazelwood decision referenced only high school students, and college students are rarely minors and their publications are most often independent of the curriculum of individual classes.

A brief filed by journalism educators in Hosty voiced broader pedagogical concerns: “If university administrators can impose prior restraint on campus newspapers, college journalists will fail to learn the importance of autonomy and professional responsibility because they will be neither autonomous nor responsible” (Peterson 2006). These arguments failed to move the U.S. Supreme Court, however, as they refused to accept the appeal, forcing advocates to pursue alternative channels to protect the independence of college media.

Hosty applied the analysis and standard of the Hazelwood case to collegiate journalism. This enables school officials to censor lawful speech so long as their decisions are “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” The caveat of Hazelwood, however, is that it impacts only those student publications deemed “non-public” or “closed forums.”

Courts must conduct “public forum analysis” to determine whether censorship is constitutional on government-owned or regulated property. Public forums may assume one of three forms. “Traditional public forums” are places historically devoted to open debate, like the town square. “Limited” or “designated public forums” are created by the government for public use and assume the protection of traditional forums. Regulation of speech in these forums must forward a significant government interest and also leave open other alternative channels for communication. Finally, in “non-public” or “closed forums” restrictions need only be reasonable and content-neutral. College newspapers fall within one of the two latter categories.

As it applies to college media, courts must determine whether institutions intended to establish a designated public forum by analyzing past practices and looking specifically at school policies. While many college newspapers were founded by students and are mostly financially independent, Hosty steered traditional classification away from a designated public forum to a closed forum, enabling college administrators to create policies that alter a publication's forum status (Student Press Law Center 2006).

Cartoon Challenges and Censorship

As the legal environment increasingly leans toward press censorship at the collegiate level, editorial cartoons and the controversy they inspire epitomize modern trends, inciting contentious dialogue about the issues they address and press freedom in a broader context. The cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad crystallized these debates on a national level. While generating a great deal of international reaction, only two major American dailies chose to reproduce these images (the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Austin American-Statesman). On the other hand, dozens of college newspapers ran the cartoons, and the response of their respective student bodies, school administrators, and newspaper staffs themselves is telling given the more restrictive environment that exists pertinent to freedom of the press at the college level. It is also indicative of the culture of experimentation that permeates the nation's campuses. This controversy was just one of many that play out on college campuses across the country every year, and fit snugly within the context of a restrictive student press environment.

College is often viewed as a time of vigorous experimentation, and student newspapers one of the enabling means. Clay Bennett, president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, noted, “College journalism in general has a greater opportunity to push the envelope. That's, I think, how you learn. The whole idea of stepping near or across that line is parcel of education.”

Chris Lamb, associate professor of communication at the College of Charleston, added, “If you're not daring when you're young, when are you gonna be daring? I think we need more cartoons that sort of cross the line a little bit, because that challenges us” (Ribeiro 2006b). The line is most often crossed at the college level as the stories that follow poignantly illustrate.

Cartoons with racial connotations most often stir the student body's proverbial pot. The Good Five Cent Cigar, the student daily newspaper at the University of Rhode Island, ran an editorial cartoon in 1998 that offended minority students on campus. The drawing depicted a Black student entering an all-White law class at the University of Texas. The professor greets the student with the following: “If you're the janitor, please wait until after class to empty the trash. If you're one of our minority students, welcome!” (Davis 1998). Rhode Island students questioned the news judgment of the staff, called for the resignation of the editors, raided the newspaper offices, and even threw the papers on the floor and stomped upon them. The student senate went so far as to freeze financing for the paper (Rau 1998). The fallout did prompt a community discussion of not only the cartoon but also the potential implications of disbanding the university's affirmative action program. The larger issue of racism on campus also endured scrutiny, spurring solutions to the problem (Levin 2001).

“The Uncartoonist” at the Battalion at Texas A&M University composed a 2002 cartoon with racial undertones, depicting a Black mother scolding her son for failing a class, threatening a career working airport security. Both have large eyes and lips and the mother is dressed in an apron with curlers in her hair. The African-American Student Coalition protested, “The attire and speech of the mother were stereotypically exaggerated and historically characteristic of the bigoted cartoon portrayal of African-Americans in an era that we assumed was bygone.” Battalion Editor Mariano Castillo stood behind his decision to run the cartoon, acknowledging racial connotations, but also the larger issue of low qualifications for airport security workers (Nissimov 2002a).

The man behind the pen name is Chad Mallam and he emerges as an equal opportunity offender, with cartoons lampooning Catholics, Jews, and Muslims. His use of the “Uncartoonist” moniker allows his drawings to “speak for themselves,” casting aside political and socioeconomic beliefs associated with his name (Nissimov 2002c). The aforementioned cartoon “changed everything” according to Mallam. “When people found the other cartoons I had done,” he said, “protests came out of the woodwork—every ethnic group, every social group protested the cartoon” (Slovacek 2005).

In a letter published in the paper, Texas A&M President Ray Bowen chose not to contest the independence of the Battalion despite the $20,000 annual subsidy it receives from the university. He did “deplore the messages conveyed by this cartoon,” fearing that it questioned the degree to which the campus provided a safe environment for a diverse student body (Nissimov 2002a). The paper, in turn, promised to alter its criteria for cartoon publication and steer clear of captions that may “lend themselves to misunderstanding.” Moreover, it sponsored a forum to address the issue of race relations on an overwhelmingly White campus (Nissimov 2002b).

Race-related cartoons can assume overtly personal tones, as evidenced by an episode at the University of California-Riverside in 2003. A controversial cartoon mocked an Asian teaching assistant speaking broken English with an accompanying caption that read, “Where have all the English-speaking grad students gone?” Nearly 40% of the student body is of Asian descent, prompting a backlash from professors and TAs. The editor of the Highlander published an apology for an “unbalanced attack on our fellow students” and promised more rigorous standards for cartoons in the future (Ahern 2003).

More recently, a September 2005 issue of the Independent Florida Alligator (University of Florida) contained a cartoon featuring Kanye West holding a playing card with the words “The Race Card” written atop, alongside Condoleezza Rice responding “Nigga Please!” This was published in the aftermath of West's comments two weeks earlier at a fundraiser for victims of Hurricane Katrina claiming that President George W. Bush doesn't care about Black people. The cartoon was later condemned in a campus-wide email written by the vice president of student affairs and in a letter from the university president published in the paper. Despite pressures from above, the Alligator refused to run an apology, but the multiracial editorial board did meet to craft a response to anticipated criticism (Ribeiro 2006a) Alligator Opinions Editor Emily Yehle (2005) wrote, “A newspaper's role is not to correct society by ignoring society; a newspaper benefits society by commenting on society.”

Cartoons need not lampoon minority groups directly to spark racial tensions. The Badger Herald, a student newspaper at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, ran a controversial cartoon and advertisement in 2001 that prompted a student demonstration and contrarian ad in the other campus newspaper, the Daily Cardinal. The cartoon depicted a Ku Klux Klan meeting, with one member remarking to another wearing a hood adorned with flowers and rabbits: “You really should get yourself some solid white sheets.” A swastika was featured on the speaker's podium. While he disagreed with the editorial judgment of the student editors, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Paul Barrows recognized a need to “respect their First Amendment right to a free press” (Nathans 2001).

A 2002 annual year-end parody of the California Aggie at the University of California-Davis contained racial undertones, but also profanity and borderline obscenity. One image featured small children playing between two “egghead” sculptures on campus with a phallic image superimposed upon them, and another depicted a White student, knife in hand, confronting the former Black president of the student government. A spoof of the paper's correction policy used profanity to undermine previous criticism levied by student senate member Mary Vasquez. The paper offered to run a front-page apology as the editor's job was placed in jeopardy (May 2002).

Sensitivity is certainly not the specialty of most cartoonists, as revealed by a drawing at the University of Maryland. Here a cartoonist depicted an American college student who traveled to the Middle East to protest Israel's destruction of Palestinian homes. She fell in front of a bulldozer and was crushed to death. The caption beneath the cartoon presented the dictionary definition of “stupid,” “3. Sitting in front of a bulldozer to protect a gang of terrorists.” Outraged, 60 students engaged in a two-day sit-in at the Diamondback offices, but the paper refused to apologize. In an editorial addressing the controversy, the staff stood by their guns, writing, “Though many staff members objected to the cartoon's viewpoint, the editors unanimously determined that by apologizing for the cartoon, we would call into question the First Amendment—a blessing from our forefathers every newspaper and every protester in America lives by” (Corrie 2003).

Even images of political figures can draw the ire of a concerned few. The student newspaper at the College of the Sequoias in California was vandalized in 2004, as a page-two cartoon portraying Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's attitudes about gay marriage was cut out from 300 copies, leaving a hole on the front page. It read, “Marriage should be between a man, a woman, and whoever he happens to grope.” Authorities declined to file a crime report because the publication is offered free on campus, and the campus adviser urged offended students to write a letter to the editor instead (Bragg 2004).

The episode most similar to that depicting Muhammad in cartoons occurred on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley. The September 11th attacks spurred a student cartoonist to draw an image of two bearded men dressed in turbans and robes in the hand of the devil with a flight manual at their feet. They believe that they are in heaven, and remark, “We made it to paradise. Now we will meet Allah, and be fed grapes and be serviced by 70 virgin women.” More than 100 protesters occupied the offices of the Daily Californian, banged on the walls and chanted, demanding a printed apology (Los Angeles Times 2001).

The student senate followed suit and recommended raising the $8,000 per month rent charged to the newspaper for their failure to print a page-one apology. The proposal allowed the paper to avoid the rent increase if it adopted “voluntary diversity training.” Furthermore, the plan enabled the paper to “rectify its complete insensitivity to the needs of its campus and its values” with “a printed apology, and a new dedication to truth in editorial and news content.” To the newspaper's credit, it did print letters critical of the cartoon and Editor Janny Hu refused to compromise in the wake of political pressure, contending that “the editorial cartoon fell within the realm of fair comment and the First Amendment” (Saunders 2001).

The recent controversy over the cartoons depicting Muhammad at the college level fits within the context of other recent developments and is unique only in the sense that it affected all campuses at once. Student newspapers were forced to make editorial decisions parallel to those of major dailies and a handful proved more daring than their professional counterparts.

The editor-in-chief of the Northern Star at the University of Northern Illinois captured the essence of the international controversy: “We weighed the potential backlash, the potential fallout and decided being afraid of backlash should not keep us from running a story, because where do you draw the line?” The 12 cartoons ran on page three of the Northern Star, surrounded by an article explaining the controversy and student opinions. An editorial titled “More Than Cartoons” appeared on page one and an opinion piece by a Muslim student voicing objections to the images ran on page eight (Janega and Mendell 2006).

The Columns, a student newspaper at Fairmont State University in West Virginia, chose to run the cartoons depicting Mohammed for the purpose of fostering debate. Journalism professor and publications advisor Kevin Smith supported this decision, asking, “How do you know if these cartoons offend you in you don't have an opportunity to view them?” (Associated Press 2006a).

Copies of the Courier, a student newspaper at the College of DuPage in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, disappeared from distribution bins after the cartoons depicting Muhammad were printed within the May 5, 2006, edition. They were thrown in the garbage, recycling bins, even locked in the personal cars of students (Edman 2006). An accompanying article explained that the rationale behind the decision to print the cartoons was “not to incite anger or create news, but to cover a story and allow for open discussion.” A statement from the Muslim Student Association was also published, calling Muhammad “one of the greatest men to live, and should only be portrayed as such” (Sjostrom 2006).

Perhaps the most notable chapter of this controversy played out on the campus of the University of Illinois, as the Daily Illini editors published six of the 12 cartoons. The editor in chief and opinions page editor were suspended and later dismissed for their decision. The newspaper then ran an apology, conversed with Muslim students, and promised more balanced coverage of the issue. While Acton H. Gorton, editor in chief, acknowledged that the cartoons were “bigoted and insensitive,” he defended their decision “to raise a healthy dialogue about an important issue that is in the news and so that people learn more about Islam.” He worried about the implications of his firing, anticipating a chilling effect for other students who would challenge the status quo (Davey and Ruethling 2006).

The cartoon controversies do not conclude with those run of the Prophet Muhammad either. Christian Keesee, a cartoonist at Radford University in Virginia, drew a series of cartoons called “Christ on Campus.” Published on the campus's Whim Internet magazine starting in October 2005, they failed to ignite controversy until the international fallout from the cartoons depicting Muhammad in February 2006. Keesee's cartoons featured Jesus in a series of contemporary settings, including debates with individuals about the Easter Bunny and the existence of dinosaurs. An online message board allowed students to post their reactions, and a Facebook page was created in opposition to the drawings. An alumnus threatened to discontinue his financial support of the university and a parent voiced opposition to student fees allocated to the paper. The administration, however, supported the free speech rights of their student media and disavowed any responsibility for content authority (Kovac 2006).

Conclusion

When placed in the context of a restrictive student press environment that increasingly permeates the university landscape, the publication of the cartoons depicting Muhammad mesh within a series of enduring controversies concerning the editorial cartoon within campus newspapers. Most often isolated episodes, the global repercussions precipitated by the cartoons depicting Muhammad forced newspaper editors at all levels to discuss how best to cover this newsworthy development. Despite curtailed press freedoms, college newspapers are more apt to push the proverbial envelope when it comes to editorial cartoons and a plethora of alternative forms of student media and expression.

This contention proved true with the cartoons depicting Muhammad and the fallout that ensued was at best uneven. Thankfully, students shunned violence in voicing their distaste for the publication of the cartoons, relying instead on various forms of civil disobedience. The dearth of administrative support is perhaps most troubling. While some institutional leaders admirably stepped forward to protect freedom of speech and press, they were in the minority. Most washed their hands of the controversy, emphasizing editorial independence as a matter of convenience rather than affirming the strong First Amendment protections enjoyed historically by campus newspapers.