Have you hugged your adviser today?

For many - I'll even say most - student journalists, the question isn't too far out. Advisers provide advice, yes, but often much more. For many, the adviser is not just the old guy or gal hanging out in the newsroom, he or she is a valued partner, a trusted confidant, a wise sage, a "fixer" and a friend.

But what happens when an adviser isn't your ally? Or, worse yet, is your enemy? What happens when advisers go bad?

Unfortunately, it happens. In fact, one of the more disturbing trends of the past few years has been the rise - at least anecdotally - in the number of cases where administrators, keenly aware that they have more leverage over employees than students, have targeted advisers who dared to support student media that published unflattering stories about their school. Such advisers have occasionally been replaced with one thought to be friendlier to administrative interests. A puppet. In other cases, an existing adviser might keep his job, but only after providing assurances to school officials, implicit or otherwise, that things will change.

However a "bad" adviser might come to be, he or she can pose a serious threat to the independence and integrity of a student publication. Fortunately, at least at a public college or university, the law provides substantial protection.

As far as the First Amendment is concerned, advisers are no different from any other school official. The law prohibits advisers - just as it does the university president - from interfering in any way with the content of student-edited media. They cannot lawfully censor, edit or change the tone of a story - for any reason - over the objection of the student editor. They cannot punish students who write stories to which they object. They cannot use their power of the purse to dictate editorial coverage (for example, by refusing to sign a student's paycheck or denying them permission to attend a conference) simply because they don't like what is published. And, finally, they cannot read a story before it is printed if the editor objects.

Of course, many advisers do review the paper before it's sent to the printer. Some even do routine copy-editing for grammar and spelling. A few others write headlines or even pick and choose the stories that appear. Are they breaking the law? Not necessarily. The key legal question in each of these cases: was the adviser's action okay with the student editor? If an editor asks an adviser to read over a controversial story to see if it's on solid footing, the First Amendment has no objection. Indeed, that's what advisers are supposed to do: provide advice. If, on the other hand, an adviser requires that he read a story before it is printed, that's illegal censorship. (It's also worth pointing out that mandatory prior review risks subjecting an adviser and the school to financial liability for libel or other content-based problems that might not otherwise exist.)

The same holds true for other forms of editorial control. An adviser at a public college is permitted only as much influence over editorial content as student editors deem appropriate. (Advisers at a private school or those working for a wholly independent publication are not limited by the First Amendment and may have more leeway in such matters.) For example, if he or she feels it necessary, a student editor can ban an adviser from an editorial meeting or refuse an adviser's demand to know the identity of a confidential source. In the end, when it comes to editorial issues, a faculty adviser's role is limited - as the title says - to providing advice. Advice, by definition, is not something that can be enforced.

Fortunately, in most cases, it's gladly welcomed. And may even be followed by a hug.

Mike Hiestand is an attorney and works as a legal consultant to the Student Press Law Center.