Six signs of student press censorship

When student journalism came under fire last year, those sparks caught the public’s attention. With the ousting of The Indiana Daily Student’s advisor and temporary ban on its print issues, the University of Alabama’s decision to close two student-run magazines, and sadly more, 2025 was a busy year for student press censors.

But not all efforts to suppress student journalists are as eye-catching. To help understand how censorship can sneak into newsrooms, here are six signs to look out for:

1. Media policies that stonewall journalists

Efforts to protect an institution’s brand shouldn’t come at the cost of student journalists’ access to sources, but some do. These insidious efforts take the form of media relations policies that stop stories from getting off the ground. This happens when a college places a blanket ban on direct interview requests to faculty or employees, even when those sources are speaking as citizens on issues people care about. It can also look like requiring reporters to fill out a form before they can contact campus employees, or a requirement that reporters email the institution’s communications office with a list of questions they want to ask.

Student journalists at public institutions have the right to speak with sources. Public colleges and universities can’t single out student reporters and treat them worse than their non-journalist counterparts. That violates the First Amendment. If a non-journalist student can reach out to university employees by email or phone to request a meeting and ask questions, then student journalists must be free to do so.

2. Investigations into student journalists

Those tasked with investigating stories on campus may find themselves under administrators’ microscope. But initiating these investigations in the first place creates a chilling effect on protected expression, and implies to other reporters that they should think twice before following in the footsteps of a student journalist who has come under institutional scrutiny.

Even just asking questions has prompted administrators to investigate a student. That was the case in April at Brown University, where Alex Shieh’s DOGE-inspired questions asking administrators about their roles and job performance led to a month-long investigation. Shieh wasn’t punished, luckily, but it’s not only disciplinary action that can stifle reporting — the threat of punishment is a chilling burden on student press freedom.

Before investigations are complete, interim disciplinary measures may hinder student reporting. At the University of Colorado-Boulder in October, a student journalist was suspended from campus for two weeks for taking photos and video footage of a pro-Palestinian protest. It should go without saying, but student journalists who aren’t allowed onto their own campuses will have a difficult time reporting about what’s happening in their communities.

3. Forcing the transition to digital-only

Printing comes with financial burdens, and supplementing a student newspaper’s print editions with a digital platform provides a necessary training ground for modern journalism. For some student outlets, the financial reality is that sometimes student-led investments in digital news come at the cost of print editions. But other student newsrooms are given no choice about how they will publish their work because administrators have taken matters into their own hands.

At what point does the switch to digital-only journalism become a free press problem? The tell-tale sign is administrative pressure based on the outlet’s content. Press freedom advocates have raised the alarm that content-based pressure may have led the University of Central Oklahoma to shut down print for the student-run paper The Vista last summer. As Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press attorney Leslie Briggs pointed out in her letter to UCO President Tom Lamb, “UCO’s actions took place after administrators repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with editorial decisions made by The Vista,” demonstrating “the decision to cut off print publication did not occur in the face of some kind of budget shortfall.”

4. Stealing newspapers and newsstands

Newspaper theft isn’t just censorship — it’s often a crime, and when committed by a public official based on the paper’s content, a First Amendment violation. That’s the case even if the newspapers are distributed for free. Government officials who remove copies of free newspapers because of their content violate the First Amendment, as a federal court in California held after Police Chief Richard Hongisto and two officers seized 2,000 copies of The Bay Times in response to the paper criticizing the chief. 

Although newspaper theft can be both a crime and constitutional violation, instances of newspaper and newsstand theft haven’t ceased. Penn State briefly removed all news racks and papers back in 2024, citing advertising rules — although the university also removed newsstands without any advertising posters. In 2025, the University of Texas at Dallas removed and banned newsstands. Though UTD later loosened restrictions, it shrunk the number of distribution points from 43 to only four for the independent student paper The Retrograde. 

5. Misusing institutional neutrality

Institutional neutrality means that a university will not take sides on the leading, contentious issues of the day. A university that commits itself to institutional neutrality imposes limitations on what the university itself can say about controversies in an effort to encourage the speech of students, faculty, and independent student organizations. 

Purdue University promised to follow the principles of institutional neutrality in June 2024. Less than a year later, however, the university egregiously misapplied that principle to justify its demands that the independent newspaper, The Purdue Exponent, drop “Purdue” from its name and URL. Purdue took other shots at The Exponent — refusing to circulate the paper and vowing to end preferential parking for its staff — but its muddled application of trademark law has popped up at other universities that have sought to muzzle student and faculty speech. Instead of promoting an environment for more student speech, Purdue quieted The Exponent’s voice. The guiding principles of institutional neutrality are lost when they’re cited to censor student journalism. 

6. Pressuring advisors to be censors

College media advisors play a pivotal role in student journalism. They give advice when student journalists grapple with ethical questions for the first time and advocate for student media as liaisons between administrators and students. But one role an advisor should never play is that of a censor. 

No advisor should be forced to act as a censor or risk their job. Student journalists without full editorial freedom aren’t just denied their rights to free expression. They’re denied the full experience and training ground that student media should be. Student journalists are journalists who cover controversial issues that some administrators would rather they avoid. If they follow a censor’s lead, students won’t report on these stories — at the cost of their journalism education and their audiences’ ability to stay informed.