Article Clipping, "Daily wins 1st Amendment appeal," The Minnesota Daily, October 12, 1983
Dublin Core
Title
Article Clipping, "Daily wins 1st Amendment appeal," The Minnesota Daily, October 12, 1983
Description
Image of an article clipping edited from a digitized version of the October 12, 1983 issue of The Minnesota Daily. The article text is as follows:
Daily wins 1st amendment appeal By Pamela Cole
The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the University Board of Regent’s May 1980 decision making the Daily student service fee refundable violated the First Amendment.
The decision overturned a December ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Renner that upheld the regents’ action.
The regents failed to prove the change was not motivated by a desire to punish the Daily for the June 1979 humor issue, concluded the three-judge panel.
The Daily and its publisher, the Board of Student Publications, filed a lawsuit in the summer of 1980 against the regents and University President C. Peter Magrath, claiming the change from mandatory to option student-service fees violated the First Amendment right of free press and 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.
The original case was heard in U.S. District Court last October, and the Board of Publications voted to appeal Renner’s ruling on Jan. 3. The appeal was heard June 14 before Appellate Judges Richard Arnold, Luther Swygert, and Donald Lay.
According to the suit, the funding change was intended to punish the Daily for the humor issue. The regents contended that the issue was not a consideration and that they were acting in the interest of students who did not want to be forced into supporting views found in the Daily.
The controversial finals week issue, called the Daily Inquirer, brought vehement complaints from both inside and outside the University.
The issue featured a mock interview with Christ from the Northrop Auditorium steps, along with numerous racial, ethnic, and religious satirizations.
The Daily argued that the regents reacted to public pressure after a barrage of negative comments from parents, students, religious groups, and legislators. Special hearings of both the Minnesota House and Senate Education committees were called in 1979 regarding the humor issue.
“I think the administration clearly yielded to outside pressure, though I think the administrators also felt the content was objectionable and so they acted on their own impulses, and that clearly violated the First Amendment,” said Christopher Ison, last year’s Daily editor.
Although the regents may have acted because of students’ objections to the Daily, “it is clear that the First Amendment prohibits the regents from taking adverse action against the Daily because the contents of the paper are occasionally blasphemous or vulgar,” said the judges. “We have here a case of mixed motives.”
During the week-long October trial, former editors of the Duluth and Waseca campus student newspapers testified that students have protested against content and the mandatory fee structure, yet the regents did not change the funding method at those papers when they imposed the Daily’s refundable fee in 1980.
“If the regents had truly been motivated by the principle that a student ought not be forced to support a newspaper that espouses views the student opposes, then one would expect that they would have taken some action in regard to newspapers at the other campuses,” the panel wrote in its decision.
“We’re extremely gratified with the decision,” said Victoria Sloan, current Daily editor. It is important the issue went to court “because the protection of free speech and free press is essential not only for the Daily but for the academic community at the University as well.”
Daily attorney Marshall Tanick said the decision holds that school administrators cannot take adverse action against a newspaper simply because its content is disliked by some readers.
“That same principle would also prohibit school administrators and other government officials from taking action against anyone because what they say or write is not deemed acceptable,” Tanick said. “I think this is a highly significant decision in the annals of freedom of the press, particularly as freedom of press applies to college and other student newspapers.”
The ruling ordered the U.S. District Court to give the Daily “injunctive relief” to correct the illegal fee structure. Tanick said the Daily will ask that the refundable fee be prohibited and that the mandatory fee be reinstated. Also, the Daily will seek attorney’s fees and all fees withheld under the illegal refundable system, he said. To date, about $16,000 has been refunded.
Daily wins 1st amendment appeal By Pamela Cole
The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the University Board of Regent’s May 1980 decision making the Daily student service fee refundable violated the First Amendment.
The decision overturned a December ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Renner that upheld the regents’ action.
The regents failed to prove the change was not motivated by a desire to punish the Daily for the June 1979 humor issue, concluded the three-judge panel.
The Daily and its publisher, the Board of Student Publications, filed a lawsuit in the summer of 1980 against the regents and University President C. Peter Magrath, claiming the change from mandatory to option student-service fees violated the First Amendment right of free press and 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.
The original case was heard in U.S. District Court last October, and the Board of Publications voted to appeal Renner’s ruling on Jan. 3. The appeal was heard June 14 before Appellate Judges Richard Arnold, Luther Swygert, and Donald Lay.
According to the suit, the funding change was intended to punish the Daily for the humor issue. The regents contended that the issue was not a consideration and that they were acting in the interest of students who did not want to be forced into supporting views found in the Daily.
The controversial finals week issue, called the Daily Inquirer, brought vehement complaints from both inside and outside the University.
The issue featured a mock interview with Christ from the Northrop Auditorium steps, along with numerous racial, ethnic, and religious satirizations.
The Daily argued that the regents reacted to public pressure after a barrage of negative comments from parents, students, religious groups, and legislators. Special hearings of both the Minnesota House and Senate Education committees were called in 1979 regarding the humor issue.
“I think the administration clearly yielded to outside pressure, though I think the administrators also felt the content was objectionable and so they acted on their own impulses, and that clearly violated the First Amendment,” said Christopher Ison, last year’s Daily editor.
Although the regents may have acted because of students’ objections to the Daily, “it is clear that the First Amendment prohibits the regents from taking adverse action against the Daily because the contents of the paper are occasionally blasphemous or vulgar,” said the judges. “We have here a case of mixed motives.”
During the week-long October trial, former editors of the Duluth and Waseca campus student newspapers testified that students have protested against content and the mandatory fee structure, yet the regents did not change the funding method at those papers when they imposed the Daily’s refundable fee in 1980.
“If the regents had truly been motivated by the principle that a student ought not be forced to support a newspaper that espouses views the student opposes, then one would expect that they would have taken some action in regard to newspapers at the other campuses,” the panel wrote in its decision.
“We’re extremely gratified with the decision,” said Victoria Sloan, current Daily editor. It is important the issue went to court “because the protection of free speech and free press is essential not only for the Daily but for the academic community at the University as well.”
Daily attorney Marshall Tanick said the decision holds that school administrators cannot take adverse action against a newspaper simply because its content is disliked by some readers.
“That same principle would also prohibit school administrators and other government officials from taking action against anyone because what they say or write is not deemed acceptable,” Tanick said. “I think this is a highly significant decision in the annals of freedom of the press, particularly as freedom of press applies to college and other student newspapers.”
The ruling ordered the U.S. District Court to give the Daily “injunctive relief” to correct the illegal fee structure. Tanick said the Daily will ask that the refundable fee be prohibited and that the mandatory fee be reinstated. Also, the Daily will seek attorney’s fees and all fees withheld under the illegal refundable system, he said. To date, about $16,000 has been refunded.
Creator
The Minnesota Daily Board of Editors
Source
Digital: The Minnesota Daily: October 12, 1983 (University Digital Conservancy)
Publisher
University of Minnesota Archives; The Minnesota Daily (MN Daily Media)
Date
October 12, 1983
Rights
Use of this resource is governed by U.S. and international copyright laws. Resource is property of the University of Minnesota. Please contact the University of Minnesota Archives for permission to publish. http://special.lib.umn.edu/uarchives
Format
Image
Language
English
Identifier
BTP_MNDaily_1983-10-12_DailyWinsFirstAmendmentAppealClipping.jpeg
Still Image Item Type Metadata
Original Format
Newspaper
Collection
Citation
The Minnesota Daily Board of Editors, “Article Clipping, "Daily wins 1st Amendment appeal," The Minnesota Daily, October 12, 1983,” Gallery, accessed November 8, 2026, https://gallerytemp.reclaim.hosting/items/show/6844.