CENSORSHIP OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS IS POOR PSYCHOLOGY SAYS DOYLE

The following article reprinted in part from the Alumni Bulletin, was written by Henry Grattan Doyle '11, Dean of Men and Professor of Romance Languages at George Washington University, Washington, D. C.

This article finds its starting-point in a remark recently made by a student of a sister institution, a member of the staff of its college weekly, to the effect that the faculty adviser read every word in every issue before the paper was printed. Every sheet of copy, every page of proof, he said, had to bear the censor's initials; and the printers had been instructed not to go to press until the faculty adviser had given his official OK.

In another instance a college president is alleged to have had a secret arrangement whereby galley proof of the college literary publication was submitted to him by the printer, without the knowledge of the staff.

Inquiry of college presidents, deans of men, heads of schools of journalism, and students active in publications, reveals that this sort of thing is, fortunately, not very common in American colleges. Only in a few cases that have come to my attention do college authorities indicate that they approve of censorship in any form. On the other hand, almost without exception they appear to believe that student editors should be given complete authority, but authority accompanied by the complete responsibility that must accompany lawful authority in every activity of life.

Censorship Contrary to ideals

Many of the answers emphasize the fact that censorship is not only contrary to American ideals of free speech and a free press, but also that censorship is bad psychology and bad educational policy. I have had an opportunity not long since to test the psychological effect of censorship in the case of a "razz" sheet published by the George Washington University chapter of Pi Delta Upsilon, the national honorary journalistic fraternity.

The editors believed, and rightly, as events proved--that the suggestion of censorship or suppression would increase their sales. Accordingly the paper was printed with one corner perfectly blank and with a similar blank space taking up about one-third of the editorial column. These blanks were then painstakingly cut out by members of the staff and it was whispered that I had suppressed an offensive story and editorial. The paper "sold like wildfire" and its appearance was followed by visits to the printer in search of the missing portions, offers of high prices for "unexpurgated" copies--as much as ten dollars was offered--and sales almost doubled those of other years.

If this "suppression" had not been a hoax to increase circulation, if there had really been a suppressed story to serve as its background, the results would undoubtedly have been similar but vastly greater in degree. The curiosity for readers would have had something substantial to feed upon and suppression would have defeated its own purposes, as I believe it usually does.

That censorship is educationally bad seems to be pretty generally agreed. Even those who are forced to practice it usually apologize for it. If college publications have a place in the educational scheme of things as I am sure they have we should not apply to them the autocratic and paternalistic methods of rod and rote that education in general has long since discarded.

The ideal system, my inquiries seem to indicate is one of complete editorial control by students, with strict accountability for the exercise of that control both as members of the college community and as citizens. Only in this way in my opinion, will student editors be enabled to develop genuine standards of editorial judgement, discrimination and taste. As long as standards are imposed by faculty or adminis- trative flat they are bound to be educationally and psychologically unsound and to be accepted by students grudgingly, if at all.

On the contrary, if such standards are developed from within, they will have every prospect of being sincerely applied and scrupulously maintained.

These suggestions, however, do not mean that there ought to be no contact whatever between student boards of editors, and deans, faculty advisers, instructors in journalism and other officers. Far from it. Indeed, I believe that student editors will seek such advice and will appeal to maturer judgment to a far greater degree when such consultation is voluntary and spontaneous, than when they feel that the adviser or censor is their natural enemy and that it is part of the game to trick him by any legitimate or illegitimate means.

Of course editors will frequently not accept this advice. That must be expected. Sometimes I am afraid events will prove that they are right in not accepting it, that they are wiser than the adviser. In any case, they should be free to accept or reject it as they choose with the understanding that they accept full responsibility for the outcome.

The advantages of a system under which frank, friendly, and intimate conference between student boards and university officials is substituted for arbitrary and autocratic control, so far outweigh the disadvantages due to the inevitable and sometimes serious mistakes that editors will make, that I am convinced we ought to take the chance courageously for the sake of the great good. Unpleasant incidents are bound to happen, but they are part of the price we must be prepared to pay for what I am sure student editors will ultimately accomplish: the development by the trial and error method of sound and acceptable journalistic standards