Discretion and Censorship

Hey Readers,

I had originally planned for this to be a post about my adventures in Ireland - I'll write that soon - but I woke up this morning to an issue at my college that I felt was worth addressing.

As some of you might recall, I started this blog in part because I had some problems with my school newspaper's staff. Specifically, I was annoyed that they had taken a Facebook comment of mine and republished it on their website as an article without even asking my permission (which I would have given). So, I started the blog to more fully control what I say and to write at my leisure without any particular guidelines.

On to the issue at hand: last night, a colleague of mine wrote an op-ed piece in the college's newspaper that accused the current president and vice-president of the Student Government Association (SGA) of numerous violations of both the school's honor code and the SGA's own bylaws. I wish I could include a link to the article, but I cannot, because the editorial staff on the newspaper decided to remove the article from their website. Why? In their "frank and unbiased opinions" (quoting from their response), the claims lack evidence, which is why they didn't cover the story; furthermore, they removed it "because of the potential harm it could cause to the individuals accused."

First, I will admit my own bias, which comes from my perspective (coincidentally, the op-ed section of the paper is called "Perspectives"). I study dictatorships and zones conflict, places where, primarily, freedom of the press is often little more than a distant dream. I recently wrote a paper discussing the challenges critical reporters face in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And, as previously mentioned, I do not fully trust the editorial staff on my school paper. Like I said, I have a bias, but I'd like to think I also have some experience. Besides, this blog has never been marketed as more than my thoughts and opinions on various issues. Let's continue:

I would understand their decision if the author had made these claims without any basis or way to support them. However, this does not seem to be the case. Basic international law has an equation: Choice of fact + choice of law = choice of conclusion. In other words, you examine a piece of evidence, examine a relevant law, and then draw a conclusion from the two. The author did just that; in one example, he mentioned that both the president and vice-president ran a joint campaign, which was clear for anyone to see (they did not try to hide it), and then cites a law in the SGA code that expressly prohibits this kind of campaign except in certain circumstances (which they did not meet). In another example, he discusses how the two managed to push through a budget during a meeting, even without the quorum required for budget approval. Now, this story could be made up, but there would have been witnesses at this meeting - the claim is easily fact-checked. The newspaper's editors do not say whether or not they have done so; they simply took down the op-ed.

That decision brings me to another point; I would estimate that the paper publishes one to two controversial op-ed pieces a year. Two years ago, they published a response from a professor who referred to one recurring opinion columnist's piece as his "latest belch," and one year ago, they published an op-ed piece from a young woman who accused the majority of the student body of saying racist "(and I mean RACIST)" things on a regular basis. In the former case, the paper allowed the professor to apologize; in the latter, the piece, among others, led to an evening discussion about diversity at the college. This year, the newspaper adopted a policy of holding "talkbacks" - open, relatively informal discussions about controversial issues on campus. So, we have a newspaper that will publish some opinions and then attempt to turn controversy into beneficial discussion, but simply delete others. Given the decision between the two, I would rather have a conversation than silence.

The newspaper had already included a disclaimer that the op-ed piece did not reflect the views of its staff, and could have published the response without removing the original piece. Instead, they deleted it after already allowing it to go to press. At best, this is sloppy editorial work - either choose to run the piece or don't. At worst, this is a strange sort of cover-up that removes a critical opinion without giving it its due - if the author's claims lack basis, then show that they do, rather than just saying there isn't any evidence.

As a final note, by the time the newspaper removed the op-ed piece from its site, there was already a considerable online buzz about the claims. Many people will want them investigated rather than hushed, and the newspaper's editors will come out looking not like people who removed baseless allegations, but those who covered up the first allegations of a violation of our school's honor code, which we hold as the ultimate rule of law on campus.

Cheers!

EDIT 1: It would appear that the author does have "at least 70" pages of evidence to back his claims, however he refrained from publishing them, largely for space concerns. He is now trying to share these pages with the community through Google Docs, but it also appears that the school newspaper is actively trying to remove the evidence, too, which only adds to my concerns that something is not right here.

EDIT 2: TL;DR - The newspaper would have been perfectly justified if it had chosen to not run the op-ed piece because of questionable facts. However, to publish it and later retract it goes against the spirit of open discussion and free speech, even if it isn't explicitly against any of the college's laws.