UPDATED
Purdue says it ‘does not deliver editorial content for other independent newspapers’
Purdue University’s decision to stop helping distribute the student newspaper may violate the First Amendment, several free speech experts told The College Fix.
In June, the The Exponent announced the university would no longer have its staff distribute the newspapers in buildings, as it had done so since 1998. However, the student newspaper’s staff can still put the publications in the buildings.
The school also cited its policy of “institutional neutrality,” which forbids it from taking a stance on political issues unrelated to campus operations. Purdue also said its agreement to help distribute newspapers expired in 2014 – however, the school had continued to do so even after expiration.
Purdue’s Office of Legal Counsel told The Fix the Exponent is a private media business and not a recognized student organization. It further explained its citation of institutional neutrality.
“Purdue does not deliver editorial content for other independent newspapers,” the university stated on June 17. “Purdue is saying that it will not do for one newspaper (the Exponent) what it does not do for others.”
Asked for updates on the situation, the student newspaper deferred to a written statement from June 5. The Fix also asked how specifically the paper’s rights are affected since it can still distribute the student newspapers.
In a June press release, Exponent leaders criticized the university’s decision and called for it to be reversed.
“We hope the University will reconsider these actions, given our long history and shared education mission,” publisher Kyle Charters said.
Quint Holguin, a sophomore speaking on behalf of the summer staff, said the Exponent provides essential training for aspiring journalists.
“The Exponent is an educational institution for me and the 125 other student journalists and employees,” Holguin said. “It helps me be a better student and is creating a strong path for a career after I leave Purdue.”
A First Amendment expert with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression provided analysis on potential free speech issues.
“Two things raise First Amendment concerns,” Dominic Coletti told The Fix via email.
“One, the timing of this announcement the same day as the university cut DEI programming and the reference to institutional neutrality suggest the primary concern is the content of The Exponent,” Coletti said. “And two, the university’s choice to renege on its agreement with The Exponent so abruptly places a large burden on the press and decreases the free flow of information on campus, which is the whole point of the First Amendment.”
He said universities typically do not distribute newspapers themselves, but can help by ensuring access to buildings.
He also said FIRE “disagrees strongly with the notion that institutional neutrality requires Purdue to kneecap its press corps.”
“Stripping benefits from independent student journalists, apparently in response to the content of their expression, undermines the whole point of institutional neutrality,” he said.
Students ‘may have a strong constitutional case,’ law professor says
Similarly, a legal scholar at George Washington University said there are First Amendment concerns, but students can also work around obstacles to reading the newspaper.
John Banzhaf said Purdue’s status as a public university makes its actions subject to First Amendment constraints. He shared that he previously had run-ins with the university over the distribution of a student newspaper. In protest, he and his student editors handed out copies and the school eventually reversed course.
“Anything which affects freedom of speech and freedom of the press at Purdue can raise First Amendment concerns,” Banzhaf told The Fix. “It means that the newspaper and its editors can sue in federal court; not only the university, but also the administrators who made and/or implemented the cancellation decision.”
He said that while “institutional neutrality” might sound plausible on its face, the university would need to demonstrate that its decision was not driven by the newspaper’s content or viewpoint.
“If the newspaper and/or its student editors sue, and make a plausible argument that the decision was based, at least in part, on impermissible reasons and therefore contrary to First Amendment protections, they may have a strong constitutional case,” he said.
Banzhaf added that the case would likely hinge on internal documents or communications. “It will probably depend on what is in the emails, minutes of meetings or phone calls, etc., which preceded the cancellation decision,” he said.
He also advised that The Exponent or its staff should consider issuing a litigation hold letter to ensure that any relevant materials are preserved. “This is standard legal procedure, and will help strengthen the case,” he noted.
Banzhaf said digital access to the newspaper mitigates some harm but said it does not eliminate the underlying press freedom concern.
“In this day and age, many if not most students who want Purdue news probably read it on their cell phones or computers,” he said. “But that doesn’t negate the free speech issue if the university withdrew support in response to critical content.”
Editor’s note: Quotes from the Exponent have been corrected.
MORE: DOJ finally sues states that treat illegal immigrants better than Americans
IMAGE CAPTION AND CREDIT: The gateway to Purdue University; Purdue University