Editor’s note: This is the first of a two-part series looking at the effects of a school newspaper censorship case at Governors State University.

Jeni Porche has put off her doctorate degree because she defended a newspaper that hasn’t published an issue in two and a half years.

The newspaper, the Innovator, was censored by administrators from Governors State University. Porche is one of the three proponents who filed the lawsuit almost two years ago.

The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided Thursday to protect college newspapers against administration censorship.

But at the core of the case, Hosty v. Carter, was whether First Amendment rights would be protected.

“Up until now we’ve always assumed college campuses are where freedom of speech ought to absolutely flourish and bloom,” said Mike Hiestand, a Student Press Law Center lawyer. “If it’s not on campus in America, where are we going to have it?”

But the case could have set a broader precedent than university control over college newspapers spanning into what bands, movies or speakers come to campus.

“It’s been pins and needles, this decision had the potential of doing extraordinary damage to college press freedom and college speech generally,” Hiestand said. “What people don’t recognize or understand is the standard they are trying to apply here is not just speech-directed act or student journalism, but all forms of student sponsored speech.”

Patricia Carter, Governors State’s dean of student affairs, ordered Regional Publishing, the newspaper’s printer, to halt all publishing after a series of articles critical of administration were published in October 2000.

Porche, the Innovator’s editor in chief, said the issue was attempted to be resolved within the university.

“We moved on up through all of student life to the provost, president and BOT and we got no remedy,” she said. “We wanted more than anything simply to put out a good strong student publication and to continue to do that and the administration made it abundantly clear that they weren’t interested in seeing us fulfill our mission.”

As a result, Porche, Innovator Managing Editor Margaret Hosty, and reporter Steve P. Barba filed a lawsuit in the fall of 2000 against 17 university trustees and administrators stating their First Amendment rights were violated.

The case was ruled upon in original jurisdiction on Nov. 13, 2001, where all charges were dropped except against Carter and sent to appeals court.

The three journalists did not have legal counseling, so Dick Goehler, attorney of record for Student Press Law Center, spoke on amecus or friend-of-the-court brief on their behalf on Jan. 7.

And more than three months later, the three judges unanimously ruled in favor of the students.

“I think it is going to send a very strong message that administrators will have to think twice before infringing upon rights of students,” Hosty said.

Hiestand said: “We’re basically very relieved, very happy. The decision was a powerful indication of student press freedom.”

The decision, as stated by the opinion from the U.S. Seventh Circuit Courts, read specifically that colleges did not fall under the same realm as a similar Supreme Court hearing, Hazelwood v. Missouri, which said high school censorship was OK.

“But Hazelwood’s rationale for limiting the First Amendment rights of high school journalism students is not a good fit for students at colleges or universities. The differences between a college and a high school are far greater than the obvious differences in curriculum and and extracurricular activities,” the court opinion read.

Mary Welsh, the Illinois assistant attorney general who represented Governors State, declined comment. However, Melissa Merz, a press secretary for the Attorney General Lisa Madigan whose office Welsh works from, said they had made no decisions as of yet on how they will advise Governors State.

Chuck Connoley, a spokesman from Governors State, said he couldn’t specifically comment on the university’s future plans, but said they considering several legal options.

“Obviously we’re disappointed by the decision,” he said. “We feel that when a decision is made on the full merits of the case, it will show there is no violation of constitutional rights.”

But Hosty said there would be no out-of-court cash settlement.

“We have no intentions of a settlement,” she said. “The money will only afford us a remedy – it will not afford justice.”

James Tidwell, a professor of journalism at Eastern, said although the appeals courts’ decision will set a precedent, it probably will not put an end to censorship.

“(Administrators) will continue to do so and I don’t think it will end,” Tidwell said. “I think we would all be a little naive in thinking that’s going to happen.

“Certainly the decision is very strong, but it doesn’t stop a dean or a president from trying to do it,” he said.