No Censorship Here

Was there and incident of censorship at the University of Missouri-St. Louis? The case revolves around a classroom poster that previously had picture of Presidential candidate Barack Obama http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/education/story/8FCCA72BB34BBB40862574E200108210?OpenDocument. The picture was removed because of complaints form students that this was a political statement. According to the Post, the university has a policy which prohibits the use of university facilitates in support of political candidates. The decision was reversed by Provost Glen Cope who concluded that the posting of picture was not intended to be used in a “political nature” and therefore, the picture did not violate the school policy. The relevant media law issue under the Tinker and Hazelwood standards: disruption and ownership, respectively. Was it a student poster and what was the purpose of the poster? The poster was one of man emanating from an assignment regarding the production of a poster about character that would appeal to junior high audience. Therefore, the school was responsible for the assignment (ownership). There was a disruption based on an apparent policy of the university. Therefore, the disruption was not because of a picture of Obama; it was the policy of the use of facilities to support political candidates. The school has ownership of the policy and the assignment. It served an educational purpose and would not result in fiscal liability. In regards to the first amendment content concern, it is clear that if the poster would have included a picture of John McCain, the same decision would have been made; content neutral. Provost Glen Cope has followed the law.