March 21, 2001

Mr. Jim Killam, President

Illinois College Press Association

Northern Illinois University

Campus Life Building, Suite 130

DeKalb, IL 60115

Mr. Killam:

Having had an opportunity to peruse carefully the missive which was written by you in regard to the ongoing conflict concerning members of the Governors State University (GSU) newspaper (The INNOVATOR), the administration at that school, and members of the GSU community in a position to exert and abuse power as the paper’s publisher, i.e., the Student Communication Media Board (SCMB), we are simply flabbergasted by what the Illinois College Press Association (ICPA) considers to be support in the way of our student media. Whereas the ICPA properly condemns any interference attempted and/or actualized against the members of the student press at GSU, it falls astonishingly short in terms of its perceptions of the conduct demonstrated on the part of the student editors at that university.

We, the student editors, have gone to great lengths, incurred personal expenses, and devoted precious time towards making abundantly clear to the ICPA the nature of the violations committed against us by our campus adversaries, as well as in informing that body as to the political climate which most probably has induced and influenced the decisions and writings of the student editors, and which have most likely contributed to the reluctance of other students to become contributors to our student media.

The ICPA has unjustly accused the members of the INNOVATOR of committing “ethical lapses.” We take great umbrage at that assessment, believing it to be entirely erroneous and, if not precariously single-minded, then astonishingly shortsighted on the part of the ICPA.  While we certainly acknowledge that the ICPA is entitled to its opinions, we cannot justify them as being accurate when taking into consideration a number of factors regarding the editorial policy, political climate, and history of journalism practices in relation to the INNOVATOR—factors of which the ICPA should be well aware of itself at this juncture of the aforementioned conflict.  

We, the student editors, are fully aware of the code of ethics which the ICPA forwarded to our attention with its missive, and, in fact, have provided a copy of it to each new applicant to the INNOVATOR. We assuredly make every attempt to adhere to it so far as circumstances will allow, realizing full well, however, that no code should be inflexible to the point wherein it becomes dictatorial and prohibits adaptations in whichever community it is intended to serve.  Unique environments call for unique provisions, hence the uniqueness of editorial policies in campus publications, the INNOVATOR included.  At all times we strive to adhere to the code which the ICPA espouses, except in circumstances wherein we have determined that it would be detrimental to the intended commitment to quality, diversity, and integrity on the part of our publication, in terms of unnecessary self-imposed limitations. In response to the ICPA’s formal recommendations to the student editors, therefore, we have this to say:

1)       Whereas the potential undoubtedly exists that involvement on the part of students in both student media and student government may prove problematic, it is indicative more of a risk than a “lapse of ethics.” Student government and student media are united in purpose; to serve the best interests of the student body to the best of their abilities.  We should not properly be compared to commercial newspapers pitted against the government in attempts to investigate stories which will garner profits when reporting of duplicitous or controversial actions by the powers that be.  Student media and student government should work cooperatively, and whenever possible, with multiple individuals assuming responsibility for the tasks of determining action and then disseminating the information. This is not necessarily always an option. GSU is unique in the sense that most of its students are adults who hold multiple roles in that they are students, parents, and employees simultaneously.  The pool of actively-involved students, therefore, is substantially limited as a result of added responsibilities maintained by our nontraditional student population. (To say nothing of the fact that we are also a relatively small university in terms of enrollment, limiting the pool further.) The fact that the age of the average student is given in university demographics to be that of 34 years also bespeaks of a certain level of experience and (hopefully) maturity not typically indicative of other universities.  Unlike the ICPA’s inferred definition, the INNOVATOR editorial board does not believe the role of the campus press to be the “watchdog of government”  (although it certainly may function in that capacity at times); it believes it to be a public community forum wherein assents, objections, thoughtful criticisms, and possible remedies may be shared by all parties of the university community in a venue which should provide an enhanced audience for such matters to be addressed. We do not believe that individuals should be limited in their choices to serve their communities, which is why students should retain the privilege at all times of being members of both the campus press and the governing bodies of their universities. One of our most widely-respected founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, was, amongst many other things, both a politician and a pressman.  If we cannot seek to emulate those whom we most admire, then from whence do we seek direction and after whom do we attempt to model ourselves? Moreover, being fully aware of what might be perceived by others as being a conflict of interest, we, the student editors, whenever applicable, have voluntarily removed ourselves from senatorial voting regarding the student press. We are of the firm estimation that students should not be denied the opportunity to influence positively their environments in all other aspects of senatorial involvement, and therefore, should not be denied the privilege to serve in student government simply on the basis of their willingness to serve their communities in an additional capacity as members of the student press;

2)        We view the paper as a discourse community, and actively solicit the full participation of the members within our community. In keeping with this sentiment, we, the student editors, do not believe that any member of the university community should be limited in terms of participating in it. As such, we strenuously object to forcing any individual from needing to choose between intended roles or means of participating with the campus newspaper.  Our advisor has the right to express his opinions and submit written materials to the INNOVATOR the same as any other member of the university community--period. We cannot ever realize the equality of coverage and consideration we intend to establish in disallowing any individual the opportunity to make known his/her voice, including that of our advisor.  For the ICPA to allege that extending our paper’s published invitation to submit written materials to the INNOVATOR to our advisor as being a lapse of ethics is a fundamentally flawed assessment: to not extend it would be a lapse of ethics on our part, as we would willfully be violating our own editorial policy, withholding potential information and/or insight from our readers, and, in our estimation, denying our advisor the right to exercise his First Amendment privileges;

3)       In terms of student editors reporting about alleged, experienced, and confirmed misdeeds on the part of any individuals in a program in which they are presently enrolled (e.g., the English department), in our defense, we plainly confess that it fell to our lot simply because there were no other individuals willing and/or able to assume the task of reporting what was deemed by student editors to be a matter of tremendous significance affecting a substantial portion of the student body.  In short, it was information (and conjecture) which was determined to be beneficial for public consumption, and was duly shared with the community in the only capacity which was available to the student press at the time wherein the article appeared. Perhaps the ICPA has not fully comprehended the difficulties experienced by the INNOVATOR in terms of effectively being able to solicit contributing writers desiring to address substantive matters. We, the student editors, have been experiencing multiple instances of personal harassment as a result of our unflinching dedication to inform the university community of offenses being committed on campus.  As a result of these “punitive” actions and accusations inflicted upon us, which included public defamation against us on the part of an administration which unjustly vilified us and condemned our publication without once attempting conciliatory measures or requesting documentation/testimony which would vindicate our reported findings, community members have been understandably reluctant to tackle substantive issues, out of fear of recrimination on the part of the offending parties being investigated and/or exposed. (One previously published letter-to-the-editor stated point blank that no Christian name was to be published out of a fear of the administration “reaching out to grab” him or her.) Has it completely escaped the attention of the ICPA that the student editors were responsible for the article pertaining to their own department because the INNOVATOR is, and has been, without a staff since the onset of our tenure?  In the credentials’ box of the issues provided to the ICPA, does it not see that our paper has no staff reporters, beat reporters, investigative reporters, layout personnel, staff photographers, or copy editors? In additional to having to assume the responsibilities of all twelve editorial roles, we, the two student editors, have been forced to assume the writing of news, features, and editorial pieces for the paper to have anything other than occasional opinion pieces. To what other individuals could the task, then, possibly fall? The information which appeared in the article written and published by student editors of the instructor cited in the article is not any less valid or pertinent for public awareness simply because of proximity on the part of the editors. Should news be withheld from the readership simply on the basis that none but the victims or eyewitnesses are available to relate the information?  We cannot for a moment substantiate such a policy, and therefore, proceeded to pen and publish the article as a fulfillment of our obligation to inform the community of information experienced by or shared with the press regarding incidents which had occurred (and were alleged to have occurred), and which could prove substantially harmful to our community; and

4)  Lastly, for the ICPA to determine that “the line between news and commentary blurs at times” on the basis that the regularly-featured column entitled “Senate Brief” has no disclaimer indicating that it is a column and/or because it is located in the news section of the paper is, in short, surprisingly  dogmatic, in addition to being remarkably (and tellingly) uninformed on the part of that body. The INNOVATOR’s editorial board has no intention of insulting its readership by labeling every item which appears in it as if it were written for a remedial audience. If the ICPA were to examine even casually the established, commercial papers of Illinois, it would discover, much the same as did the INNOVATOR editors, that columns appear everywhere without identification disclaimers and in the news sections of said publications. (In fact, the pressman at the Daily Southtown which the ICPA has promised to contact about our plight is writer Phil Kadner, whose column appears always in the news section of that paper, and, incidentally, has no disclaimer of any kind appearing with it.) Moreover, the ICPA should be aware, as are most readers, that columns traditionally represent the perspective of an individual on matters both factual and theoretical.  The “Senate Brief” is always, always, always accompanied with a byline (which includes the author’s name and relation, if any, to the student senate), indicating that it is demonstrative of an individual’s commentary instead of a formal statement issued by the student senate.  It is a column, not a press release, as it has never been composed by the senate’s cabinet or public relations officer to be published for general public awareness of senate activities. Were that the case, the INNOVATOR would clearly identify it as such. The INNOVATOR, prior to being stripped of the opportunity of going to press, extended opportunities to the other two senates at GSU (civil servant and faculty) to have regular columns in our campus newspaper.  The faculty senate president has already submitted an initial column, which was slated to appear in the issue halted from going to press. Whereas he elected to permit his cabinet to review his column prior to submitting it to the INNOVATOR (which is a courtesy arrangement presently in existence with the student senate as well), it is still written entirely in first-person mode, and draws almost exclusively on his personal experiences to substantiate his opinions. Should we insist that contributors to the student senate column be denied the same privileges? We cannot for a moment substantiate such a disparity of flexibility existing amongst our contributors. The code of ethics which the ICPA cites maintains that items which appear in our publication “should” be labeled, however, “should” does not necessarily imply “must.”  For the ICPA to infer that any failure to do so on the part of the INNOVATOR is “a lapse of ethics” is not merely egregiously erroneous in terms of simple grammar, it is also shockingly judgmental on the part of that organization. Any dictionary of the English language worth its salt will inform that the term “should, “ in addition to being used to express condition, obligation, propriety, or probability, is also used as an auxiliary function to express a request or indicate a stated preference: The INNOVATOR’s preference is to refrain from being enslaved to the stated preference of the code cited by the ICPA.  We believe what the ICPA so incorrectly perceives as being a “lapse of ethics” on the part of the INNOVATOR is more accurately a misperception on the ICPA’s part to acknowledge that codes are not legislation; legislation may be in error; and erroneous (and non-binding) impositions are meant to be scrutinized and promptly disregarded wherever desirable and applicable. Does the ICPA recommend that the INNOVATOR encourage and publish writing which is weak and ineffectual?  Should a revelation of facts be entirely free of conjecture in instances wherein the full consequences might escape the readership without expository commentary? Should the INNOVATOR be required by the ICPA (or any other external parties) to refrain from exercising its own editorial policy and First Amendment rights in adhering to a code which does not and possibly cannot fully support the INNOVATOR’s stated goals and mission? We cannot for a moment agree with such voluntary enslavement, as ethic codes are meant to be guidelines, not yokes and shackles inhibiting the truth, individual expression, or creativity. The code which is cited by the ICPA was created by members of the press, and, as members of the press, we should not be denied the opportunity to contribute to or modify that code wherein the need or desire arises.  True, it is our inheritance, but it is also our legacy, and if the code fails to adapt to the multiple, varied, and unforeseen circumstances it encounters, it is doomed to fail us time and time again: we will become servants to our own creation.  That having been said, we, the student editors of the INNOVATOR, flatly refuse to become participatory victims of our own devices any more than we would willingly elect to be subservient to those of our adversaries.

 We are hopeful that the ICPA is not to be counted amongst our adversaries as a result of this frank and necessary response to that body’s findings and recommendations, as given in the missive forwarded to both our attention and that of the administration at GSU. (Incidentally, we were somewhat taken aback by the fact that the ICPA failed to include our advisor, Dr. Geoffroy de Laforcade, in the mailing. Aside from such an oversight possibly being perceived as discourteous, considering the ICPA spoke with him during the course of its investigation on a number of occasions, we find it difficult to fathom that he would be excluded from being informed of the advice from the ICPA wherein it is his primary responsibility to advise the students. We have shared this information with him, but ask that an official copy of the correspondence generated by the ICPA per our conflict please be forwarded to his attention.)

 We understand that the ICPA has offered to mediate on our behalf, however, we are somewhat concerned that the ICPA did not contact us for clarification prior to the final draft issued to our adversaries, who will most likely attempt to utilize the ICPA’s missive as ammunition to further discredit our integrity and credibility.  If the letter which has been generated by the ICPA is indicative of the type of assistance the INNOVATOR editors should anticipate in the future from that body, we must then politely decline any such offers.  We are, after all, much more subject to the consequences of any missteps taken in terms of dealing with this conflict, and the ICPA’s contributions to date, although perhaps made with the noblest of intentions, we believe will prove disastrously deleterious to our situation. We are hopeful that the ICPA will reconsider some of the recommendations it has made to us where “bothered” by the decisions of the INNOVATOR editors, and will seek to be in communication with us about our adamantly-stated positions.  We are hopeful that the ICPA will come to a fruitful understanding of the uniqueness of our environment, our impositions, our obstacles, and our plight in general.  We are hopeful that the ICPA will reconsider its position, contact us with an earnest desire to discuss our differences in opinion, and possibly reach some type of productive, positive, and cooperative agreement towards dictating further involvement with us and communication to our administration.  Until such time, we remain,

Cordially,

Margaret L. Hosty, Managing Editor,               Jeni S. Porche, Editor-in-Chief,

GSU INNOVATOR                                         GSU INNOVATOR