by Laura McHale
NIU Graduate '97
Six months already have passed since I started working at the Chicago Tribune
as an ad sales rresentative. It's hard to believe that a year ago I was
sitting at the Northern Star putting the finishing touches on my resume.
The advertising sales experience and my active involvement in the Alumni
Mentoring Program both have contributed to a solid beginning in my sales
career.
From both my sales and managerial positions at the Northern Star, I was
able to develop and understand how to deal first-hand with difficult clients.
In my first few weeks at the Tribune, I dealt with a client who could be
described as abrupt, one-sided and stubborn. Patience and persistence allowed
me to succeed at the Northern Star and I used that same approach in this
situation. Regularly, I would call and drop any pertinent information to
get my foot in the door. This process became frustrating at times, but eventually
this individual began to advertise more frequently and has since become
a profitable client for the Chicago Tribune.
The Alumni Mentoring Program gave me the chance to interact with professionals
in my desired field. Follow-up strategies, appropriate questions to ask
during different interviews, and how to effectively research a company all
were key pieces of knowledge I received from this program.
From a college student's perspective, the job-search process can be very
exciting and rewarding -- although it can be very stressful and disappointing,
too. Fortunately, I believe my success thus far with the Chicago Tribune
is largely due to the mentoring program and my invaluable sales experience
at the Northern Star.
Much of the following information comes from press releases and other public comments by the Student Press Law Center.
by Jim Killam
NORTHERN STAR ADVISER
College media across the nation reacted quickly against a November federal court decision that could open the door for new censorship efforts by administrators.
In Kincaid
v. Gibson, federal district court Judge Joseph M. Hood dismissed
the claims of students who sued Kentucky
State University after it removed the newspaper adviser and confiscated
yearbooks because of the publications' content. Hood ruled that the college
press was subject to the same restrictions as the high school media.
High school media's First Amendment freedoms were drastically cut by the
1988 U.S. Supreme Court case, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.
That decision allowed high school administrators to censor articles in school-sponsored
student publications that administrators decided were "ungrammatical,
poorly written, inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced...,"
or "inconsistent with the shared values of a civilized social order."
But, the high court specifically refused to apply the ruling to college
student expression. The Kentucky case challenges that.
"The college media could be fighting for its
life with this case," said Mark Goodman, executive director of the
Student Press Law Center. "As we've
seen at high schools across the nation, when government officials can censor
an article they don't like simply by saying that it's 'poorly written' -
you've made a joke of the First Amendment. No credible student journalism
program can operate under such constraints. The future of journalism education
is very much at stake here."
Judge Hood said officials at Kentucky State University did not violate the First Amendment when they confiscated and held the 1992-94 issue of The Thorobred, KSU's student yearbook, because, among other things, the yearbook editors decided to use purple instead of the school's colors of yellow and green on the book's cover.
School officials also justified their censorship by claiming that the yearbook
covered current events instead of focusing exclusively on school activities
and failed to identify all students in photo captions. They never claimed
that the yearbook contained libel, obscenity, disruptive or other legally
unprotected speech.
The judge also rejected the students' claim of First Amendment infringement
based on the school's temporary removal of the student newspaper adviser,
who refused to give in to the administration's attempt to censor the newspaper,
The Thorobred News, as well.
The students have said they will appeal the ruling. The Student Press Law
Center is soliciting support from media and civil rights groups around the
nation for the students' cause.
I know what you_re thinking: the same thing I was thinking when I read about
this case. So I spoke with George Shur, NIU legal counsel. He disagrees
with the ruling, calls it an abberation, believes it will be overturned
and says he doesn't foresee any attempt here to use it as precedent to change
NIU's relationship with the Star. I hope he's right and at this point have
no reason to believe he's not. But, as always, we remain on guard.
What are we to make of this case? Does this case signal a threat to the
First Amendment, or are we journalists just overreacting to some silly dispute
about a yearbook? Goodman thinks the threat is real. Here's what he wrote
to the College Media Advisers e-mail list:
"The impact of this decision is going to be on all student media, not
just college yearbooks. There is no inherent legal distinction between a
student newspaper and a yearbook (or any other student medium). Don't think
future courts when confronted with college newspaper censorship cases are
going to look at this decision and say, 'But that was only a yearbook case.'
The level of First Amendment protection has no relationship to the physical
format of the publication. ...
"Since the Student Press Law Center has been accused (typically by
college adminisratators) of having a 'knee-jerk reaction' to just about
every censorship incident we've dealt with in the last 12 years, I'm not
unaccustomed to that charge. ... If you wait for the most offensive case
of censorship before standing up for your rights, you'll find that you don't
have any rights left to fight for; they were all whittled away in those
earlier cases that you decided just weren't that 'important.'
"That fact is, at Kentucky State, the student newspaper/yearbook adviser
was removed from her position (and made a secretary) because the administration
didn't like the fact that she was standing up for the students' rights to
publish what they chose in the newspaper, not what the administration wanted.
(The administration admits that.)
"After students and others voiced their outrage and legal action was
threatened, she was eventually returned to her position. But if you don't
think that sent a message to her and her students, you've not spent much
time on a college campus. And if that kind of action isn't prohibited by
the First Amendment, then I don't know what the First Amendment is there
to protect. If I were an adviser, I would be pretty damn nervous."
Goodman didn_t have to wait long to see what he feared would happen. Within
days of the Kentucky case, the University
of North Alabama adopted a policy requiring the adviser to subject UNA's
student newspaper to prior review. Delivered along with the new policy was
a newspaper clipping: a story about the Kentucky State decision.
It's important to remember that actions like this are legally misguided.
SPLC Staff Attorney Mike Hiestand points to dozens of federal court cases
protecting college press freedom and outlawing prior review.
But, it_s equally important that journalists and other free-speech advocates
fight the Kentucky ruling and use it as a tool to educate the public about
the importance of a free student press. Editorials, letters to the editor
and just plain everyday conversations can help build public awareness of
a potential threat to journalism education.
If we don't guard our freedom, who will?
For more information, contact Mark Goodman, Executive Director, Student
Press Law Center, (703) 807-1904.