ASG Law

Tag: School Discipline

  • School Discipline and Due Process: Balancing Rights in Fraternity Membership Cases

    This Supreme Court decision clarifies the extent of a private school’s authority to discipline students for violating rules against fraternity membership. The Court held that Colegio de San Juan de Letran validly suspended a student found to be a member of a prohibited fraternity, emphasizing that schools can enforce disciplinary rules to maintain order and uphold their educational mission. This ruling affirms that students are entitled to due process, but that this does not require the same level of formality as court proceedings, setting a clear standard for disciplinary actions in Philippine schools. The case also reinforces the school’s right to enforce its policies and maintain a safe and orderly environment.

    Fraternity Membership: When School Rules and Student Rights Collide

    The case of Sps. Eugene C. Go and Angelita Go, and Minor Emerson Chester Kim B. Go vs. Colegio De San Juan De Letran, et al., stemmed from the suspension of Emerson Chester Kim B. Go (Kim) from Colegio de San Juan de Letran for allegedly violating the school’s policy against fraternity membership. The school authorities initiated an investigation after receiving reports of fraternity recruitment activities, which included medical examinations revealing signs of hazing injuries on some students. Four students admitted to being neophytes of the Tau Gamma Fraternity and identified Kim as a senior member present at their hazing rite. Based on these findings, Letran suspended Kim, leading his parents to file a complaint for damages, claiming unlawful dismissal and a violation of due process. The central legal question revolved around whether Letran had the authority to discipline Kim for fraternity membership and whether the school had followed due process in imposing the suspension.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of the Gos, awarding them moral, exemplary, and actual damages, finding that Letran had failed to observe due process and that the evidence of Kim’s fraternity membership was insufficient. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s decision, holding that the petitioners were given ample opportunity to be heard and that there was no bad faith on the part of the respondents. The CA emphasized that the disciplinary action was a suspension, not a dismissal, and that Letran had the authority to enforce its rules against fraternity membership. The Supreme Court then reviewed the CA’s decision to resolve whether Letran had acted within its rights and whether the procedural requirements of due process had been met.

    The Supreme Court began by clarifying that the disciplinary sanction imposed on Kim was a suspension, not a dismissal, thereby correcting a mischaracterization in the petitioners’ complaint. The Court then addressed the RTC’s assertion that Letran, as a private school, lacked the authority to impose disciplinary action for fraternity membership. The Court disagreed, emphasizing that Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS) Order No. 20, series of 1991, which prohibits fraternities and sororities in elementary and secondary schools, applies to both public and private institutions. The Court stated that to limit the prohibition only to students enrolled in public schools would impede the very purpose of the order.

    4. EFFECTIVE UPON RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER, FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES ARE PROHIBITED IN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS. PENALTY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE IS EXPULSION OF PUPILS/STUDENTS.

    Building on this principle, the Court highlighted the intent of DECS Order No. 20, s. 1991, as evidenced by its title, “Prohibition of Fraternities and Sororities in Elementary and Secondary Schools,” which does not distinguish between private and public schools. The order also addresses the heads of private schools, colleges, and universities, indicating its broad application. Even in the absence of such a prohibition from the Department of Education, private schools retain the right to establish disciplinary rules and regulations, as recognized in the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. This right is consistent with the constitutional mandate for schools to teach and develop discipline in students.

    Section 78. Authority to Promulgate Disciplinary Rules. Every private school shall have the right to promulgate reasonable norms, rules and regulations it may deem necessary and consistent with the provisions of this Manual for the maintenance of good school discipline and class attendance. Such rules and regulations shall be effective as of promulgation and notification to students in an appropriate school issuance or publication.

    The Court found Letran’s rule prohibiting high school students from joining fraternities to be a reasonable regulation, considering the adult-oriented activities often associated with fraternities and the fact that most high school students are minors. The penalty for violation of the rule was clearly stated in the enrollment contracts and Students Handbooks provided at the start of each school year, and Mrs. Go had signified her conformity to these terms in Kim’s enrollment contract. The Court then addressed the petitioners’ argument that due process was violated, referencing Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations. However, the Court clarified that the applicable standard for student disciplinary cases is that outlined in Guzman v. National University, not Ang Tibay.

    In Guzman, the Supreme Court laid down the minimum standards for due process in disciplinary cases involving students, including being informed in writing of the charges, having the right to answer the charges, being informed of the evidence against them, having the right to adduce evidence, and having the evidence duly considered. These standards do not require the same level of formality as court proceedings, and cross-examination is not an essential part of the process. Applying these standards, the Court found that Letran had complied with the requirements of due process. The petitioners were informed of the charges through notices and conferences, and Kim was given the opportunity to provide a written explanation, which was considered by the school authorities. The Court cited Ateneo de Manila University v. Capulong to reject the argument that students must be allowed to examine written statements used against them in school disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing that such proceedings may be summary.

    The Court also dismissed the petitioners’ argument that they were not given the opportunity to examine the neophytes’ written statements and the security officer’s incident report, noting that these documents are admissible and may amount to substantial evidence in school disciplinary proceedings. The Court emphasized that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard, which Kim was afforded. Furthermore, the parents had been given ample opportunity to assist their son in his disciplinary case, but they failed to attend the scheduled conferences without explanation. The Court concluded that Letran had observed due process, and the decision to suspend Kim for violating the school’s disciplinary rule should be respected. The Court ultimately found no grounds to hold the respondents liable for moral or exemplary damages, as there was no evidence of bad faith, malice, fraud, or improper motive in disciplining Kim. Similarly, the claim for actual damages was dismissed, as it was based on speculative and hearsay testimony regarding the cancellation of business orders.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Colegio de San Juan de Letran lawfully suspended a student, Kim, for violating the school’s policy against fraternity membership, and whether due process was observed in the disciplinary proceedings. This involved determining the extent of the school’s authority to enforce its rules and the student’s right to a fair hearing.
    Did the Supreme Court find that Letran had the authority to discipline Kim? Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed that Letran had the authority to discipline Kim for violating the school’s policy against fraternity membership. The Court cited DECS Order No. 20, s. 1991, and the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools to support this authority.
    What standards of due process apply in student disciplinary cases? The standards of due process in student disciplinary cases, as outlined in Guzman v. National University, include being informed in writing of the charges, having the right to answer the charges, being informed of the evidence against them, having the right to present evidence, and having the evidence duly considered. These standards are less formal than court proceedings.
    Was Kim allowed to cross-examine the witnesses against him? No, the Supreme Court clarified that cross-examination is not an essential part of due process in student disciplinary cases. The Court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings may be summary.
    Were the neophytes’ written statements admissible as evidence? Yes, the Court held that the neophytes’ written statements and the security officer’s incident report were admissible as evidence in the disciplinary proceedings. The Court clarified that these documents may amount to substantial evidence to support the decision.
    Did the parents of Kim have an opportunity to assist him? Yes, the Court found that the parents of Kim were given ample opportunity to assist him, as they received notices for conferences to discuss the matter. However, they failed to attend these conferences without providing any explanation.
    Why were moral and exemplary damages not awarded in this case? Moral and exemplary damages were not awarded because the Court found no evidence of bad faith, malice, fraud, or improper motive on the part of the respondents in disciplining Kim. The Court emphasized that the school acted within its rights and followed due process.
    Why was the claim for actual damages dismissed? The claim for actual damages was dismissed because it was based on speculative and hearsay testimony regarding the cancellation of business orders. The Court emphasized that liability for actual damages cannot be based on speculation.

    In conclusion, this case serves as a significant reminder of the balance between a school’s right to maintain discipline and a student’s right to due process. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of clear and reasonable disciplinary rules, as well as the need for schools to provide students with a fair opportunity to be heard when facing disciplinary action. This ruling also underscores the principle that schools must act in good faith and without malice when enforcing their policies.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: SPS. EUGENE C. GO AND ANGELITA GO, AND MINOR EMERSON CHESTER KIM B. GO, VS. COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN, G.R. No. 169391, October 10, 2012

  • Clean Hands Doctrine: Upholding Agreements in School Discipline Cases

    In Nelson Jenosa, et al. v. Rev. Fr. Jose Rene C. Delariarte, O.S.A., et al., the Supreme Court affirmed that parties who renege on agreements without justifiable reasons cannot seek equitable relief from the courts. This case emphasizes the importance of upholding agreements, especially in the context of school discipline, and underscores the principle that one must come to court with clean hands to seek equitable remedies. The decision highlights the judiciary’s reluctance to interfere with the authority of educational institutions to enforce discipline, provided such actions are fair and reasonable.

    When a Hazing Agreement Goes Awry: Can Students Seek Injunction?

    The case revolves around students from the University of San Agustin who were caught engaging in hazing. To avoid formal disciplinary action, an agreement was reached where the students involved would transfer to another school. However, the parents later sought to retract this agreement and filed complaints for injunction and damages, arguing a violation of due process. The central legal question is whether the students, having initially agreed to the transfer, could then seek equitable relief from the courts to prevent its implementation.

    The backdrop of this case involves a clear breach of an agreement. After the hazing incident, consultations led to an agreement signed by the parents, stipulating that the students involved as initiators would transfer schools. This agreement was a compromise to avoid formal hazing charges. Following this, the parents then sent a letter to the University President urging the non-implementation of the agreement, leading to the initial complaint for injunction and damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC initially issued a writ of preliminary injunction, directing the University to admit the students, a decision later contested and eventually appealed.

    The University raised the issue of jurisdiction, arguing that the RTC had no authority over the matter and that the students were guilty of forum shopping by filing multiple complaints. The Court of Appeals (CA) sided with the University, leading to the Supreme Court appeal. The Court of Appeals decision highlighted that the lower court had committed grave abuse of discretion by interfering prematurely with the educational institution’s authority to discipline its students. According to the CA, the students should have exhausted administrative remedies within the educational system before resorting to judicial action, emphasizing the principle of non-interference by courts in academic matters.

    The Supreme Court’s analysis hinges on the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the equitable doctrine of “clean hands.” The Court referenced the constitutional mandate for educational institutions to instill discipline and ethical values. It emphasized that schools have the authority to maintain order and impose disciplinary measures. The legal basis for this position is rooted in the Constitution, which grants educational institutions the right to develop moral character and personal discipline among students, as stated in Article XIV, Section 3(2):

    CONSTITUTION, Art. XIV, Sec. 3(2): “teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline.”

    Building on this principle, the Supreme Court noted that the parents had agreed to the transfer, and the University had acted in good faith based on that agreement. It was only after this agreement that the parents sought legal intervention. The Court explicitly invokes the doctrine of “clean hands,” a fundamental concept in equity, citing University of the Philippines v. Hon. Catungal, Jr.:

    Since injunction is the strong arm of equity, he who must apply for it must come with equity or with clean hands. This is so because among the maxims of equity are (1) he who seeks equity must do equity, and (2) he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. It signifies that a litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or deceitful as to the controversy in issue.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that the parents’ act of reneging on their agreement, without justifiable reason, constituted inequitable conduct. This, according to the Court, barred them from seeking equitable relief such as an injunction. The decision underscores the importance of honoring agreements and acting in good faith, especially when seeking remedies from the courts. This principle ensures that parties do not benefit from their own inconsistent or unfair behavior.

    The practical implications of this ruling are significant for both educational institutions and students. Schools are given greater confidence in enforcing disciplinary agreements, knowing that courts will generally uphold their authority unless there is clear evidence of abuse or violation of due process. Students and parents are reminded that agreements made in good faith are binding and that reneging on such agreements can have legal consequences. This promotes a culture of accountability and responsibility within the educational environment.

    The ruling also clarifies the role of courts in intervening in school disciplinary matters. Courts should exercise caution and restraint, respecting the autonomy of educational institutions to manage their internal affairs. Judicial intervention is only warranted when there is a clear violation of legal rights or a manifest abuse of discretion. The decision reinforces the idea that administrative remedies within the school system should be exhausted before seeking judicial relief.

    Furthermore, this case reinforces the importance of honesty and fairness in legal proceedings. Litigants must present themselves before the court with integrity and clean intentions. Any attempt to deceive or manipulate the legal process can result in the denial of relief, regardless of the merits of the underlying claim. This principle serves to uphold the integrity of the judicial system and ensures that justice is administered fairly.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether students who initially agreed to transfer schools due to a hazing incident could later seek an injunction to prevent the transfer.
    What is the “clean hands” doctrine? The “clean hands” doctrine is an equitable principle that states a party seeking relief from a court must not have engaged in any inequitable or unfair conduct regarding the issue.
    Why did the Supreme Court deny the students’ petition? The Supreme Court denied the petition because the students reneged on a prior agreement to transfer schools, violating the “clean hands” doctrine.
    What does this case say about school discipline? This case reinforces the authority of educational institutions to maintain discipline and enforce agreements made with students and parents regarding disciplinary actions.
    What is exhaustion of administrative remedies? Exhaustion of administrative remedies requires parties to pursue all available avenues within the school system before seeking intervention from the courts.
    What was the agreement made between the students and the University? The agreement was that the students involved in the hazing incident would transfer to another school to avoid formal disciplinary charges.
    How does this ruling affect future similar cases? This ruling sets a precedent that courts will likely uphold disciplinary agreements and may deny relief to parties who act inconsistently or unfairly.
    What action prompted the filing of the complaint? The complaint was filed after the parents tried to reverse their decision to have their children transferred to another school after a hazing incident.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Jenosa v. Delariarte serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding agreements and acting in good faith. The “clean hands” doctrine remains a vital principle in equity, ensuring that those who seek justice come to court with fairness and integrity. This case also reinforces the judiciary’s respect for the autonomy of educational institutions in maintaining discipline and order within their communities.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Nelson Jenosa, et al. v. Rev. Fr. Jose Rene C. Delariarte, O.S.A., et al., G.R. No. 172138, September 08, 2010

  • Campus Press Freedom vs. School Authority: Balancing Student Rights and Institutional Discipline in Philippine Schools

    When Can Schools Discipline Students for Campus Journalism? Understanding Free Speech Limits in Philippine Educational Institutions

    TLDR: This landmark Supreme Court case clarifies that while campus journalists enjoy freedom of expression, schools can impose disciplinary actions if student publications cause substantial disruption or invade the rights of others. Philippine law protects student journalism but not at the expense of maintaining order and a conducive learning environment.

    [G.R. No. 127930, December 15, 2000]

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine a school newspaper sparking outrage over its content – articles deemed ‘obscene’ and ‘vulgar’ by some, while seen as expressions of free thought by others. This scenario isn’t just hypothetical; it’s the real-life case that reached the Philippine Supreme Court, forcing a crucial examination of the delicate balance between campus press freedom and the authority of educational institutions to maintain discipline. In Miriam College Foundation, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court tackled the question: Can schools discipline students for the content of their publications, and if so, under what circumstances?

    The case arose from disciplinary actions taken by Miriam College against student editors and writers of their school paper, Chi-Rho, and magazine, Ang Magasing Pampanitikan ng Chi-Rho. The publications featured articles and poems with mature themes that some members of the school community found objectionable. This led to the students facing expulsion and suspension, igniting a legal battle that tested the limits of student press freedom in the Philippines.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: CAMPUS JOURNALISM ACT AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM

    The legal backdrop of this case is primarily shaped by two key pillars: the Campus Journalism Act of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7079) and the constitutionally enshrined principle of academic freedom. The Campus Journalism Act explicitly aims to “uphold and protect the freedom of the press even at the campus level and to promote the development and growth of campus journalism.”

    Section 7 of RA 7079 is particularly relevant, stating: “A student shall not be expelled or suspended solely on the basis of articles he or she has written, or on the basis of the performance of his or her duties in the student publication.” This provision strongly suggests a legislative intent to shield campus journalists from arbitrary disciplinary actions based on their journalistic work.

    However, this protection isn’t absolute. The Philippine Constitution also grants academic freedom to institutions of higher learning. Section 5(2), Article XIV states: “Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.” This academic freedom encompasses the right of schools to determine their educational objectives and how best to achieve them. This includes the power to set standards for student conduct and discipline, essential for maintaining a conducive learning environment. Prior Supreme Court decisions, like Ateneo de Manila vs. Capulong, have affirmed a school’s right to discipline students to uphold its academic freedom and maintain order.

    Therefore, the central legal tension in the Miriam College case lies in reconciling the students’ right to campus press freedom under RA 7079 with the school’s right to academic freedom and disciplinary authority. The Supreme Court had to determine if and when a school can legitimately restrict student expression in campus publications without violating the Campus Journalism Act.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: THE ‘LIBOG’ CONTROVERSY AT MIRIAM COLLEGE

    The controversy began with the September-October 1994 issue of Miriam College’s student publications. The Chi-Rho broadsheet featured a short story titled “Kaskas,” depicting a group of young men attending a bold show. The Ang Magasing Pampanitikan magazine carried the theme “Libog at iba pang tula” (Lust and Other Poems), containing poems and illustrations exploring themes of sexuality. The content, particularly poems with titles like “Libog,” “Linggo,” and “Virgin Writes Erotic,” along with accompanying illustrations, sparked complaints from members of the Miriam College community, including parents and even students from a neighboring school.

    Miriam College’s Discipline Committee initiated an investigation, charging the student editors and writers with violating school regulations. The students, including Jasper Briones (Editor-in-Chief), Jerome Gomez, Relly Carpio, and Gerald Gary Renacido, were asked to submit written statements. Instead, they argued that the Discipline Committee lacked jurisdiction, citing the Campus Journalism Act and DECS Order No. 94, which they believed vested jurisdiction in the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) Regional Office.

    Despite the students’ objections, the Discipline Committee proceeded ex parte and recommended sanctions. The Discipline Board subsequently imposed harsh penalties: expulsion for several key editors and writers, suspension for others, and withholding of graduation privileges for one student. Here’s a breakdown of some of the sanctions:

    • Jasper Briones (Editor-in-Chief): Expulsion
    • Gerald Gary Renacido (Writer of “Kaskas”): Expulsion
    • Relly Carpio (Writer of “Libog”): Dismissal
    • Jerome Gomez (Foreword Writer): Dismissal
    • Jose Mari Ramos (Art Editor): Expulsion
    • Camille Portugal (Asst. Art Editor): Withholding of graduation privileges

    The students then sought legal recourse, filing a petition for prohibition and certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, questioning Miriam College’s jurisdiction. Initially, the RTC denied their plea for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), but later granted a preliminary injunction. However, in a surprising turn, the RTC eventually dismissed the entire petition, agreeing with Miriam College that the DECS had jurisdiction.

    The students appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which sided with them, declaring the RTC’s dismissal and the school’s sanctions void. Miriam College then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court, in its decision penned by Justice Kapunan, reversed the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized the school’s inherent right to discipline its students as part of its academic freedom. Quoting Ateneo de Manila vs. Capulong, the Court reiterated that academic freedom includes determining “who may be admitted to study,” logically extending to “whom to exclude or expel.”

    The Supreme Court clarified the scope of Section 7 of the Campus Journalism Act, stating that it protects students from being disciplined solely for their articles, “except when such articles materially disrupt class work or involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.” The Court found that Miriam College, as an educational institution, had the authority to investigate and discipline the students for the content of their publications, as this power is “an inherent part of the academic freedom.”

    Crucially, the Supreme Court did not rule on whether the content was actually obscene or whether the penalties were appropriate. It focused solely on the jurisdictional question, affirming the school’s right to discipline while setting the standard for when such discipline is permissible in the context of campus journalism.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: NAVIGATING CAMPUS PRESS FREEDOM AND SCHOOL RULES

    This Supreme Court decision provides important guidance for both schools and student publications in the Philippines. It underscores that while the Campus Journalism Act protects student press freedom, this freedom is not absolute and must be balanced with the school’s responsibility to maintain order and a conducive learning environment. Schools retain the authority to discipline students for publication content that goes beyond protected free speech and causes substantial disruption or infringes on the rights of others.

    For schools, this ruling affirms their right to set and enforce standards of conduct, including those related to student publications. However, schools must exercise this authority judiciously and ensure due process in disciplinary proceedings. Disciplinary actions should not be based merely on subjective disapproval of content but on demonstrable evidence of disruption or harm caused by the publication.

    For student journalists, the case serves as a reminder that campus press freedom comes with responsibilities. While they are free to express their views and explore diverse themes, their publications must operate within the bounds of responsible journalism and respect the rights of others in the school community. Publications that incite violence, defamation, or cause significant disruption may fall outside the protection of the Campus Journalism Act.

    Key Lessons:

    • Balance is Key: Campus press freedom and school authority must coexist. Neither is absolute.
    • Disruption Threshold: Schools can discipline student journalists if their publications cause material disruption, substantial disorder, or invade the rights of others.
    • Due Process Required: Schools must follow fair procedures when investigating and disciplining students for publication content.
    • Responsible Journalism: Student journalists should practice responsible journalism, understanding the potential impact of their publications on the school community.
    • Context Matters: The school environment and the specific nature of the publication are important factors in determining the limits of permissible speech.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q1: Can a school censor articles in a student publication just because they disagree with the content?
    A: No. The Campus Journalism Act protects the editorial independence of student publications. Disagreement with content alone is not grounds for censorship or disciplinary action. However, this freedom is not absolute.

    Q2: What constitutes “material disruption” that justifies school intervention in student publications?
    A: Material disruption is not precisely defined but generally refers to situations where the publication’s content significantly interferes with school operations, learning activities, or the safety and well-being of students and staff. Examples could include inciting violence, widespread harassment, or defamation.

    Q3: Does the Campus Journalism Act give students absolute freedom of speech in school publications?
    A: No. The Supreme Court clarified that student press freedom is not absolute. It must be balanced against the school’s academic freedom and responsibility to maintain order. Speech that materially disrupts school operations or violates the rights of others is not protected.

    Q4: What kind of disciplinary actions can a school impose on student journalists?
    A: Schools can impose various disciplinary actions, ranging from warnings and suspensions to expulsion, depending on the severity of the infraction and the school’s disciplinary code. However, expulsion or suspension should not be solely based on the content of articles unless the disruption threshold is met.

    Q5: Are private schools held to the same free speech standards as public schools in the Philippines?
    A: Yes, generally. The principles of free speech and academic freedom apply to both public and private educational institutions in the Philippines, although the specific regulations and disciplinary procedures may vary.

    Q6: What should student journalists do if they believe their campus press freedom is being violated?
    A: Student journalists should first attempt to resolve the issue through dialogue with school authorities. If that fails, they can seek legal advice and potentially file complaints with the Department of Education or pursue legal action in court.

    Q7: Does this case mean schools can now freely censor student publications?
    A: No. This case affirms the school’s right to discipline in specific circumstances of disruption, but it does not give schools a blanket license to censor student publications. The Campus Journalism Act still protects student press freedom.

    Q8: What are the responsibilities of a publication adviser under the Campus Journalism Act?
    A: The publication adviser’s role is limited to “technical guidance.” They are not supposed to control editorial content but rather advise students on journalistic standards, ethics, and technical aspects of publication.

    ASG Law specializes in Education Law and Media Law, assisting both educational institutions and media organizations in navigating complex legal issues. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.