The San Matean is concerned by last year's review of the journalism program which compromises the role of a free and independent press on this campus as protected by the First Amendment.A national First Amendment rights group has been watching closely and advising as The San Matean gathers information regarding any current and future decisions about the journalism program through the California Public Records Act.
Ongoing correspondence between The San Matean and the college administration is being watched by The Student Press Law Center, a national organization that assists students in finding legal counsel. California Newspaper Publishers Association, which protects the interests of newspapers throughout the state, and Adam Keigwin, Chief of Staff for State Senator Leland Yee, are also carefully watching the situation.
Under state law the administration is required to hand over any information regarding decisions about the program and its newspaper since the college is a public agency.
A faculty committee presented recommendations from a Program Improvement Viability review that included journalism courses to the Academic Senate in December 2008. The PIV document makes several comments that newspaper should be something the school can be proud of and what should be done to change the way the journalism program runs.
"I respect and understand First Amendment rights, and a student paper should be produced by students with no interference," wrote President Claire in an e-mail last May. " But with that right comes the responsibility of producing an accurate paper that is well written." While The San Matean appreciates the President's intention of not interfering with our First Amendment rights, this statement indicates a desire to control the quality of the newspaper.
The school cannot stop speech because it does not make the school look favorable, said Keigwin last May. "Mispellings and grammar are protected speech; unless you are committing libel, this is covered by the First Amendment," Keigwin said.
The San Matean is concerned that changes outlined in the PIV document indicate a desire for faculty to edit the content of the paper before it goes to print which is a violation of students' First Amendment and free speech rights.
The San Matean continues to move forward with gathering all information used in making decisions about the program and its newspaper and wants to ensure that our First Amendment rights remain intact.
The San Matean sent an e-mail to President Michael Claire on June 19 outlining a request for all information regarding the program including all past and present versions of the PIV document, responses to the report, statistical information about the program, and all information obtained in the development of the PIV.
"Our request is pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250) and Article 1, Section 3 of the California Constitution.If you find that a specific provision of the law requires you to exempt any or all of the information we have requested, please notify us and explain the reasons for your determination no later than 10 days from the receipt of this request, as explained in Government Code Section 6253," read the e-mail.
The San Matean did not receive a response to the initial request.
The San Matean hand delievered a second letter to Claire on Aug. 19, stating that it had been far more than the 10 days that the law allows for an exemption to be made.
On the same date, Student Press Law Center faxed a letter to Claire. "We are contacting you in hopes of opening a dialogue leading to the preservation of The San Matean as an independent voice of accountability rather than as a public relations organ for the college", read the letter from Frank Lo Monte, Executive Director of The Student Press Law Center. "The PIV document reflects basic misunderstandings about the proper role of an independent student journalistic voice on a public campus. A statement that the newspaper should 'reflect well on this program and the campus' (as was stated in the PIV document) sends an intimidating message to student journalists that negative coverage or dissenting opinions about the College may be met with reprisals."
The letter also voiced concern that the June 19 open records request had 'gone entirely unanswered - not even acknowledged for two months.' "The College is a public agency with public disclosure obligations, and the fact that it ignored a valid public-records request gives rise to understandable suspicions that there is something to hide," read the letter. "This 'information blackout' has led to a great deal of fear and suspicion that needs to be dispelled."
is a member of the 
