Censorship in Public Colleges and Universities

The Koran

Many colleges have instituted summer readings for incoming students which then become the basis for discussions during their fall – semester orientation programs. In May 2002, the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, as part of its summer reading program for freshmen and transfer students, assigned a translation of Approaching the Qur’an: The Early Revelations by Michael Sells, a professor of religion at Haverford College. Before the beginning of fall classes, students would be asked to participate in two hour discussions and write a one page assignment based on the reading. This particular book focuses on the “early revelations” of Islam which are concerned with issues of personal faith. If students objected to the reading, they could write an essay explaining why they objected. There were no penalties for those students who did not do the assignment and participate in the discussion.

The purpose of the summer reading programs at colleges is to give the students an opportunity to expand their intellectual horizons and sharpen their critical thinking. In selecting the Koran, the University of North Carolina believed that it was exposing their students to some of the teachings of a major religion not familiar to many of them.

Opposition to the selection of the book came from three anonymous freshmen and two conservative religious organizations, the American Family Association and the Family Policy Network. They challenged the selection of Professor Sells’ book on the basis that a state university was violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment by requiring students to read and discuss Islam. Besides his concern for the separation of church and state, Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, stated in an interview, “By forcing students to read a single text about Islam that leaves out any mention of other passages of the Koran in which Muslim terrorists find justification for killing non-Muslims, the University establishes a particular mind-set for its students about the nature of Islam.”

The American Family Association and the Family Policy Network filed a law suit in Federal District Court claiming that by using this book the University was engaged in religious indoctrination by presenting a sympathetic view of Islam. On August 15, 2002, four days before the discussions were scheduled to begin, a federal court judge refused to grant a temporary restraining order to the plaintiffs. The court pointed out that students did not have to do the reading or written assignment and there was no penalty for not participating in the program. An appeal by the two organizations to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was also unsuccessful when a three judge panel ruled unanimously that the University could go ahead with their plans for discussion of Approaching the Qu’ran: The Early Revelations.

Mr. Glover said he was “upset” by the court’s decision and called the University’s choice of a book on the topic, “Islamic indoctrination.” He further stated, “There’s a double standard. If it’s Jewish or Christian it’s not allowed, but if it’s a skewed, whitewashed presentation of Islam, it’s just dandy, because it’s enlightenment.” James Moser, the chancellor of the university commented, “Academic freedom is safe at North Carolina and that the assignment was like “yeast for the bread of discussion.”

In August 2003, the summer reading program again came under fire with the choice of the highly acclaimed book, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America, by Barbara Ehrenrich. The author spent a year earning low wages in unskilled jobs as part of the working poor. Included were jobs at a Wal Mart, nursing home, fast food restaurant, and as a cleaner in private homes and hotel rooms. This time criticism came from a student group, The Committee for a Better North Carolina, which placed advertisements in local newspapers denouncing “the book as ‘a classic Marxist rant’ that portrays business people as exploiters of working class Americans.”

A danger signal to intellectual freedom at state universities was expressed in response to the selection of Ms. Ehrenrich’s book by State Senator Austin Allran of North Carolina who remarked, “We’re here to emphasize that the state legislature is getting a little bit tired of this. The University needs to cut back on its arrogance and start caring about the people who are paying the bills.”

In response, Joan Bertin, the Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, stated. “There is probably no better way to destroy a university than to subject it to legislative control over course content and reading assignments.”

A College Yearbook

In 1994, approximately 2,000 copies of the yearbook, The Thorobred, were confiscated by Betty Gibson, the Vice President for Student Affairs and Mary Smith, the President of Kentucky State University. The administrators believed that the yearbook lacked the appropriate standard of quality for distribution. Ms. Gibson cited a number of criticisms including the fact that the color of the yearbook did not match the university’s official colors, the yearbook’s title, “Destination Unknown” was not appropriate, and there were too many photographs of current events and celebrities.

The yearbook had been primarily the work of Capri Coffer, the editor, with the limited assistance of two other students. Ms. Coffer believed that it was appropriate to use “Destination Unknown” as the theme as an expression of the “uncertainty” of the time period and “where are we going in our lives.” She also felt that it was important to not only have photographs of Kentucky State University and its community but also to include political and current events of the nation and the world.

Ms. Cofer and Charles Kincaid, a student at the university who had paid for the yearbook as part of his student activity fee, challenged this decision in federal district court. Their primary claim was their First Amendment rights had been violated by the university. In 1997, the district court judge ruled in favor of the university stating that the yearbook was not a public forum. He based his decision primarily on a significant United States Supreme Court decision in 1988, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, where the court ruled that public high schools were not public forums and administrators could censor school newspapers for pedagogical reasons. In 1999, the students appealed the decision to a three judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court which upheld the district court’s ruling. The court concluded, “It is no doubt reasonable that KSU should seek to maintain its image to potential students, alumni and the general public. In light of the indisputably poor quality of the yearbook, it is also reasonable that KSU might cut its losses by refusing to distribute a university publication that might tarnish rather than enhance that image.”

In 2000, the students appealed this decision to the full court of the Sixth Circuit. In their deliberations, this court focused on defining three types of forums: non-public, limited, and traditional. In its decision in January 2001, by a 10 to 3 majority, the court noted that the publication of The Thorobred by the students met the criteria of a limited public forum. They found that the written policy of Kentucky State University had designated editorial control of the yearbook to the student editors. The policy also limited the role of the advisor to the types of changes that “deal only with the form or the time and manner of expressions rather than alteration of content.” The court concluded that the actions of the administration in rejecting the content and confiscating the yearbook were violations of the First Amendment rights of Capri Cofer and Charles Kincaid.

In 2001, the Sixth Circuit Court sent the case back to the district court for settlement. Kentucky State University agreed to release the 1993-94 yearbooks and attempt to distribute them to former students. A financial payment was also made to the plaintiffs, Ms. Cofer and Mr. Kincaid.

The Sixth Circuit Court’s decision identified a publication at a state university as having the constitutional protection of a limited public forum. However, the US Supreme Court decision in the Hazelwood case dealt with a publication in a public secondary school; therefore had limited First Amendment protection in a non-public forum.

Congressional Investigations

During the 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin launched a series of investigations into the presence of Communists in various facets of American government and society. While serving as chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, he especially targeted the Executive branch of the Federal government, accusing the administration of harboring Communists and permitting them to have a significant role in decision making. He broadened the scope of his inquiries, including among others religious institutions, the entertainment industry, labor unions, the United States military, and colleges and universities.

The term "McCarthyism" was described by one writer as "the practice of making sensational accusations of disloyalty or corruption, often unsupported or based on doubtful evidence and of conducting inquisitorial investigations ostensibly to expose pro-communist activity." McCarthyism became part of our political language then and remains so today. Spurred on by the cold war with the Soviet Union, investigations were conducted by federal and state legislative committees into the presence of Communists in colleges and universities. Although the Ivy League schools, especially Harvard University, received significant attention, the investigations were national in scope. Many colleges and universities established their own inquiries, with special committees often comprised of the faculty, administrators, and trustees.

There was a range of responses from the academic community to the questioning of their political membership and activity. Some not only answered questions regarding their past membership and activity in Communist organizations, but also were willing to identify the membership and participation of others. In effect they were "naming names." Others were willing to discuss their own membership and activity, but refused to discuss or divulge information about others. Still others cooperated with the inquiries made within the academic community, but refused to testify before government committees based on their constitutional right to protect themselves against self-incrimination. Some refused to cooperate in any way. Senator McCarthy and his supporters quickly labelled the most resistant academics as "Fifth Amendment Communists." To his consternation, they could not be forced to testify-- and unless the government brought specific charges, the "Fifth Amendment Communists" could not be prosecuted. However, the courtroom of public opinion (the colleges and universities) was often responsive to the climate of the time. There were untenured faculty members who were not granted tenure and then dismissed for their refusal to respond to Federal and State congressional inquiries, and tenured faculty members who were not promoted to higher ranks because of the adverse positions they had taken.

Lloyd Barenblatt, a graduate student and teaching fellow at the University of Michigan from 1947 to 1950 was called before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1954 when it was investigating Communist infiltration into the field of education. He refused to answer questions regarding his membership and activity in the Communist Party, and was convicted in United States District Court for contempt of Congress and congressional committees. He appealed the verdict: the Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. Barenblatt claimed that the Congressional committee inquiry and the questions asked violated his First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association and that the inquiry was conducted for exposure. The

Court in a 5-4 decision concluded that the subcommittee was legislatively authorized to investigate Communist

infiltration into education, and that Mr. Barenblatt had been adequately informed of the nature of the committee's questions. They stated that the questions he refused to answer did not violate his rights protected by the First Amendment. They also noted that it did not matter if the objective of the committee was exposure. The four justices who dissented stated that the rule creating the committee was a violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, and that compelling answers to the questions asked violated the freedom of speech and association protection of the First Amendment.

Mr. Barenblatt's refusal to answer the questions in this congressional inquiry into Communist activity in education resulted in a conviction for contempt of Congress and a six month jail sentence.

In evaluating the impact of McCarthyism on colleges and universities, a journalist commented "... There is no sure way to measure the books that were not written, the courses that were not taught, and the research that was never undertaken."