Last Tuesday was supposed to be a triumphant day for journalists. After years of advocating for a federal “shield” law that would protect journalists from revealing confidential sources to the government in many situations, the House passed just such a bill by the staggering margin of 398 to 21. And just a few weeks ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee overwhelmingly sent similar legislation to the Senate floor. Although the White House opposes the legislation, it seems that the votes to override a veto are in place.

Many journalists, however, are far from satisfied with the law—and rightly so. Some claim the law does not go far enough, while others say it has too many exceptions written into it. But the most egregious element of the bill is its overly narrow definition of who is a journalist that excludes, among other groups, the collegiate press. Specifically, the House bill only covers people who engage in journalism “for a substantial portion of the person’s livelihood or for substantial financial gain.”

The law as a whole should be applauded. In recent years, the government has become increasingly aggressive in pushing journalists to name their confidential sources. Many are concerned about the potential chilling effect that would occur if the government could force journalists investigating its practices to divulge their sources. Journalists may hesitate before writing a controversial expose, and sources and whistle blowers would likely be reticent to come forward. While the law may not go far enough, it is at the very least a concrete step in the right direction.

We understand the reasons that the legislation must define clearly who falls under its protection and that it must discriminate between serious journalists and those who simply claim to be journalists so they can enjoy the benefits of the shield law. But college journalists are just as serious about their craft as many professionals, and excluding them simply for legislative convenience is arbitrary and unnecessary.

Some may argue that college newspapers would rarely require the coverage of the shield law. After all, the law is meant to protect journalists who are doing intensive investigations that the government might fear—the type of story that every college journalist dreams of but that few find. Yet the rarity of a situation is not sufficient grounds to exclude it from the law. And if a student journalist does happen to stumble upon an important story, the lack of shield law protection may give him or her second thoughts about pursuing it, leading to the same chilling effect that Congress is seeking to eliminate.

The exclusion of college journalists also overlooks their important contributions to the media. College newspapers provide a vital training ground for professional journalists. Excluding students of journalism from such an important law consigns them to a journalistic playground. In preparing to join their professional peers, college journalists should have access to the same tools and protections that they will enjoy when they are paid.

Fortunately, there is still time for Congress to revise its definition of what makes a “journalist.” The bill must clear the Senate and then the differences between the two versions must be worked out in a conference committee. We hope that the version that lands on President Bush’s desk features a more inclusive definition that includes college journalists rather than the House’s myopic conception of journalism.