Kincaid v. Gibson, a censorship case involving a student-run publication at Kentucky State University, could determine the fate of student-run publications’ freedom and editorial rights.

The case’s original decision, which was based on a decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier in 1988, stated that the publication was not a public forum and could be considered under the jurisdiction of KSU administration.

The yearbook criticized school administrators, and the cover did not use school colors.

A rehearing of the trial has been approved by a majority of the judges on the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. A date is not yet set.

“The case itself is a concern to all college media run by students,” said Michael Agin, student media adviser at the University of Kentucky, “because it gives an interpretation of law that lessens the rights of students to make decisions for their publications.”

Many students in the Sixth Circuit who work on college publications are concerned that the case could allow school administrations to violate students’ First Amendment rights.

States affected by the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals include Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.

Randall Ford, news editor for Middle Tennessee State Sidelines, a student-run publication, said the decision will be crucial.

“It’s pretty scary. [The final decision] could have implications on things we do every day,” he said.

Matt Herron, copy editor for the University of Kentucky’s Kentucky Kernel, does not believe Kincaid v. Gibson should be compared with the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier decision.

“This kind of thing is dangerous. Applying high school standards to college [publications] is ridiculous,” Herron said.

Herron also said he thought the U.S. Supreme Court should become involved with Kincaid v. Gibson, and he was confident the court’s decision would side with KSU students.

“I think it should go to the Supreme Court because then a decision in favor of the students’ rights would be validated,” Herron said.

Jenny Crouch, vice president for Member Services for College Media Advisers and student publications director at Middle Tennessee State University, said the decision of the courts will affect her students because they are under the Sixth Circuit Court’s jurisdiction.

“It [the case] opens the door for campus administrators to consider the possibility to censor student publications,” Crouch said. “That’s a very real threat.”

Mark Goodman, executive director for the Student Press Law Center, also said he is concerned with the long-term consequences of the outcome of the case.

“[The final decision] could have an impact on future court cases,” Goodman said. “It really relates to the freedom of expression rights any student who receives some financial assistance from the school has.”

Defense attorney J. Guthrie True of Johnson, Judy, True and Guarnieri in Frankfort, Ky., said the firm’s position is not to compare this case to the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case, but that the yearbook “is not a public forum and as a result the university has a right to regulate it in any fashion is deems right.”

True also said if the university prevails in the rehearing, the case has a good chance of making it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

KSU administrators are supporting the original decision to withhold their 1993-94 yearbooks from students.

According to a statement released by Hinfred McDuffy, vice president for University Advancement at KSU, there is no change in the university’s original position, and officials believe that “yearbooks are by their nature a commemorative journal” and do not “present the same public forum for expression as do newspapers.”

Agin, who disagrees with KSU administrators, argues that instead of censoring student publications, the university should focus more on educating students to make good decisions.

“It is arrogant to think a student’s decision is somehow not as good as an administrator’s,” Agin said. “Don’t let the administration control student press.”