Two Inkwell editors plan to sue AASU administration and SGA for violating their First Amendment Rights

Editor-in-chief Angela Mensing and news editor Kristen Alonso are in the process of obtaining an attorney in order to file a lawsuit against the president of the university and the Student Government Association for violating their First Amendment rights. The SGA Finance Committee cut the amount of student activity fee funding from $54,500 in 2007-08 to $39,740 in 2008-09 - a total reduction of $14,760 - because they were dissatisfied with the content of the newspaper.

The reason for the cut was clearly content motivated and is clearly documented through e-mail correspondence from leading SGA Finance Committee members.

The Student Press Law Center Executive Director Frank LoMonte and Attorney Advocate Adam Goldstein are working on finding an attorney who will take the case pro bono.

According to a SPLC legal brief posted on the SPLC website:

Student editors have the right to make all decisions related to the content of their student publications. Courts have been consistent in ruling that at the public colleges and universities, school officials, including student government officers, may not exercise the power of a private publisher over student publications simply because they provide financial support. The fact that public universities are considered an arm of the state distinguishes them from a private publisher. Bazaar v. Fortune, 476 F.2d 570, aff'd en banc with modification, 489 F.2d 225(5th Cir. 1973)(per curiam, cert. denied, 416 U.S. 995(1974).

As a result of these cases, it is now clear that:

School officials cannot:

(1) Censor or confiscate a publication, withdraw or reduce its funding, withhold student activities fees, prohibit lawful advertising, fire an editor or adviser, "stack" a student media board, discipline staff members or take any other action that is motivated by an attempt to control, manipulate or punish past or future content. Joyner v. Whiting; Schiff v. Williams, 477 F.2d 456(4th Cir. 1973); Leuth v. St. Clair County Comm. College, 732 F.Supp. 1410(E.D.Mich.1990); Kincaid v. Gibson, 236 F.3d 342 (6th Cir. 2001)(en banc).

(2) Demand the right to review publications before distribution. Antonelli v. Hammond, 308 F.Supp. 1329 (D.Mass 1970).

Students cannot:

Student government officials are subject to the same First Amendment restraints as school administrators. For example, they cannot punish a paper's staff or advisor or withdraw a publication's funds for content-based reasons. State Board for Community Colleges v. Olson, 687 P.2d 429 (Colo. 1984), appeal after remand, 759 P.2d 829 (Colo. Ct.App. 1988).

However, school officials can:

Regulate non-content based aspects of a publication. For example, school officials can review the financial records of its student media and prohibit staff hiring policies when they discriminate on the basis of race.

The Inkwell has been the student newspaper for Armstrong Atlantic State University since 1935 when the college was known as Armstrong Junior College. In the past few years, the advertising staff has worked hard at increasing sales in order to eventually become financially independent - an endeavor that we unfortunately are in no way ready to do at this time.

Two years ago, we had projected ad sales of $10,000 and now we project $25,500 for next year.

The budget consists of two components: "x" amount in student activity fee funding + "y" amount in projected ad revenue.

According to the Student Activity webpage on the AASU website, the SGA allocated $69,500 for 2007-08 - an amount that includes $15,000 independently earned income in ad sales.

The Inkwell staff has grown in the past year from 15 staff members to about 50. In addition, we have three editorial board members who are sharing a computer. Because of these reasons in addition to the increase in printing costs and travel, the Inkwell's proposed budget requested $70,829 from student activity fees.

Mensing requested to attend the budget hearing on Feb. 16 in order to explain why the newspaper was asking for approximately $11,000 more from student activity funding than the year before. During the hearing, Chris Nowicki along with Charita Hardy and other members of the Finance Committee brought up their dissatisfaction and anger about specific content issues, and even used past editions to point out the specific concerns.

Vicki McNeil, vice president of student affairs and chair of the Student Publications Board, along with SGA Adviser Al Harris claim that the reason they cut the budget was because the editor-in-chief was going to implement a policy to charge SGA and CUB for student ads.

All students, faculty and staff get free classified ads up to 30 words. Prices for display ads for next year for the broadsheet publication are:

$25 for 1/8 page ad $50 for 1/4 page ad $75 for 3/4 page ad $100 for full page ad ** color and design production are extra.

On March 7, Mensing requested a meeting with President Thomas Z. Jones and McNeil to discuss the situation. Mensing also requested that Jones intervene and reinstate the cut in funding.

Not only did Jones, who is listed as the official "publisher" of The Inkwell, neglect to meet with the newspaper's editor-in-chief, he also delegated the responsibility to handle the situation to McNeil who set up a meeting with Harris, Tony Morris, associate professor of English and adviser for the newspaper, and Mensing for March 18.

McNeil did not review the report or the e-mail evidence that Mensing gave her in the meeting - a meeting that lasted exactly five minutes. Nor did she give the editor a fair hearing to explain her case.

Harris said during the meeting that SGA determined that they will need over $8,000 to offset the cost in advertising for the 2008-2009 year in order to maintain the same level of current advertising; however, that means they are saying that they have had (in order to maintain) and will continue to need a minimum of 80 full page ads in the average 27 editions in a school year. Remember, we're an eight-page publication.

Furthermore, they believe they are justified in taking $4,260* from The Inkwell budget to pay for their advertising in The Inkwell. Since when are advertisers allowed to take money from a newspaper's budget in order to pay for their own advertising? It's not even ethical.

(*The $4,260 amount is the difference between the total budget including independently earned ad sales between 2007-08 and 2008-09.)

Despite their claim, we believe that content was a motivating factor based on the issues and questions that SGA Finance Committee Members brought up during the budget hearing in addition to e-mailed correspondence before and after the hearing.

It is true that Harris and SGA/CUB members were upset about the Inkwell charging them for ads next year - even at such discounted rates - however, their logic and alleged reasons don't match their words or e-mailed correspondence documenting their concerns about content.

We contend that the cut will jeopardize the future of the newspaper and its staff's journalistic education. In addition, SGA and the administration are causing a greater injury to the entire student population and its other readers because the level of coverage, reporting and the overall quality of the newspaper could very well suffer.

We do not answer to SGA or the finance committee although they do control the purse strings. The university president has assigned a Student Publications Board to govern student publications, and the Board has written policies established which clearly give the chief editor the rights and responsibility of newspaper content.

In addition to the Publication Board giving the editor the right and responsibility of determining specific content, it also states that:

"All Board actions should be governed by a respect for freedom of the press."

As chair of the Publications Board and VP of Student Affairs, McNeil's actions - in not reviewing the report submitted as evidence during the requested meeting - demonstrates undoubtedly a support of the student government's violation of the editorial staff's First Amendment rights to freedom of the press.

The university president has not only failed the student newspaper by violating its Constitutional Rights to freedom of the press, he also failed the entire student body by not taking the opportunity this situation brings to the table and using it to further educate students on the historical impact and crucial need for current and future respect for the First Amendment and the Fourth Estate of Government.