By: Joe Murphy
The degree of deference that university administrators should be
granted in reviewing school-sponsored expressive activities is an
open question. In 1988, the Supreme Court in Hazelwood School
District v. Kuhlmeier applied the public forum doctrine at the
elementary and secondary school level and ruled that public school
administrators there could censor student publications as long as
their actions were “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical
concerns.” The Hazelwood Court expressly declined to
address whether the same standard should apply in the higher
education context as well. The Seventh Circuit in Hosty v.
Carter recently held that it should.
Critics contend that Hosty was an inappropriate
extension of a legal standard crafted to fit the educational needs
of younger students in a curricular setting and that the Seventh
Circuit’s decision threatens to undermine freedom of the press on
our nation’s college campuses.
This Comment argues that the Seventh Circuit was correct to
extend the “Hazelwood framework” to the university level but that
the court erred in granting qualified immunity to the defendant
administrator in Hosty. Student freedom of expression
faces little threat from Hazelwood’s extension to the
university level, but Hosty’s misuse of qualified immunity
is an overlooked hazard.
Part I of this Comment reviews the Hazelwood decision and
clarifies what is meant by the “Hazelwood
framework.” Part II discusses the arguments for and against
extending Hazelwood to the university level and contends
that the doctrine should be so extended. Part III reviews
Hosty’s public forum analysis and illustrates how the
Seventh Circuit erroneously granted qualified immunity to the
defendant university administrator based on a misapprehension of
the legal uncertainty surrounding Hazelwood. Part IV
examines the legal and policy implications of the Hosty
decision. Finally, this Comment concludes by recommending
that the Supreme Court resolve the extent of Hazelwood’s
reach.