November 16,
2000
Dr. Fagan:
It has been
over ten days since your memo was distributed to the university community,
airing your concerns about articles that appeared in the October 31, 2000
edition of the INNOVATOR. I have
spent this time processing your letter and working on a detailed response. It has taken this period of time to complete the necessary
fact checking and to provide a reasonable absorption and reaction time for
faculty members, students, or staff members to contact the INNOVATOR office for
follow up on accusations made in your memo.
It is
critical to the integrity of the academic community’s relationships that the
sharing of viewpoints is facilitated. Your memo provides us a glimpse of your
perceptions. We eagerly anticipate
further dialogue in the pursuit of truth; however, I must confess to being
puzzled and concerned by the manner in which you elected to make such
perceptions known and, more importantly, your personal concerns raised against
the recent efforts of the INNOVATOR.
Since May
2000, when I took over the job as editor-in-chief of the INNOVATOR, the “role
of a free press” has been a daily meditation, an inescapable concern of those
of us working to keep the newspaper moving forward.
“Basic journalistic standards” are at the center of all that we do.
Your November 3, 2000 “letter to the editor,” shared with the university
community, stated, “The INNOVATOR …failed to meet basic journalistic
standards.” Your stated
perception differs significantly from that of the INNOVATOR staff and advisor.
I read carefully the copy of the professional journalistic code of ethics
attached to your memo. By way of clarification, we are student journalists, not
professional journalists; therefore, we are not bound to uphold the Sigma Delta
Chi Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.
We do, however, adhere responsibly to the Associated Collegiate Press (ACP)
Model Code of Ethics, that can be read by accessing the ACP’s website at
www.studentpress.org.
After reading both codes, one can discern distinct differences, as well
as similarities. While we adhere to the student journalism code of ethics, in
our perception, we have not violated any aspect of the professional code of
ethics, hence, the need for dialogue among us.
What did you intend by attaching to your memo a code of ethics to which
student journalists on the INNOVATOR staff have no specific affiliation?
One call to the INNOVATOR office or to our advisor would have clarified
for anyone student journalism ethical guidelines.
The many
phone calls, personal statements, email messages, and letters to the editor seem
to contradict your statement, “The
INNOVATOR did not enlighten, nor did it inform the GSU community through
thoughtful, accurate, and fair reporting.” Your statement suggests that you
received 100% agreement from our community.
This is obviously not accurate. It
seems that you have used your position to act as “judge, jury, and
executioner” by engaging such inaccurate, definitive statements. We may not
ALL be pleased when information is made public, but pleasure or displeasure does
not alter the truth. Of the
correspondence the INNOVATOR has received, which scolds the paper for
“attacking” members of the faculty in an “unprofessional attempt to vent
personal vendettas,” NOT ONE (to date) has offered supporting information
about the news reported to uphold his/her opinions about professors that he/she
might favor. While expressing
positive experiences with a particular instructor and sharing them in the school
paper to show support is one issue, it is quite another to claim that a
journalist has erred in his/her reporting because facts have surfaced that do
not corroborate those of a particular student’s experience with a specific
teacher. A case in point:
My recent organized support as a student of an English professor when he
was competing for a tenure-track position is not nullified because one of my
classmates did not sign a petition to support his selection.
Opinions do have a place. The
first section of the INNOVATOR is dedicated exclusively to the opinions of the
university community. For every cited issue and incident, the INNOVATOR made
phone calls, wrote email correspondence, and/or attempted to speak in person
with key players. It is not the
INNOVATOR’s prerogative to require response from individuals; it is our
ethical responsibility, however, to provide an opportunity for response.
Allegations
do arise from frustrated, disappointed, and angry students for numerous reasons:
failure to receive financial aid in a timely manner; lack of availability of
course offerings needed in a program’s curriculum; having to defer graduation
dates because of program advisor negligence; worries that course work does not
challenge and prepare students for the next level of study; rejection, personal,
religious, and/or racial bias on the part of instructors; lack of accessibility
to adjunct professors; learning that students are out of the running for
program/departmental honors because program coordinators have failed to organize
fair methods of award recipient selection; missing opportunities
for scholarships and prizes in some programs without explanation while other
programs made available many opportunities; and maybe being “just plain been
lied to” by individuals exercising authority over students’ educational
experience at GSU. We at the
INNOVATOR work from leads provided by students and members of the faculty,
staff, and community. Since my
assuming the role of chief editor, certainly, one can see the many invitations
in each edition of the INNOVATOR, asking that the readership call, write, and/or
email with leads and news events. Every
mailbox on campus also received a “communication head” flyer by way of
encouraging leads. Your comments,
suggesting that members of my staff are airing their “grievances” though the
paper, are unfair and unsubstantiated claims.
If ANY community “grievance” is brought to the newspaper, it is
handled by my staff as a confidential LEAD.
I do agree
with your choice of the words “barrage” and “angry.”
I can attest to the ongoing “angry barrage” of phone calls and
submitted leads reporting injustices experienced by students and employees
alike. The power of harsh truths reported, the actual accumulated information
that might strike a nerve in a reader, is the attention-grabber.
It is the anger, confusion, and questioning of the people that provide
the leads that give fire to certain articles.
The journalist is only the instrument.
Perhaps this fact is blurred by those who mean to squelch facts in
articles that might implicate them. Can
any of us consider ourselves untouchable?
In regard to
the October 18th strategic planning meeting, referenced in your memo,
it is of grave concern to the INNOVATOR staff that your perception of the
occurrence absolutely contradicted that of GSU Student Senate President Dorothy
Ferguson. First of all, Dorothy was not present at the October 18th
meeting; I was (as was M.L. Hosty) in Ms. Ferguson’s place. NO, the “punk
kid” exchange did not occur at the meeting cited in your memo, but at the
October 4th meeting, in which Ms. Ferguson’s name appears in the
attendance roster of the minutes. (Dorothy
Ferguson verifies the exchange in a document in my possession.)
Again, if someone had called the INNOVATOR office to check facts, we
would have provided this information. Though
Ms. Ferguson has voiced concerns about the way in which information about the
event was conveyed by the writer of the column you cite, she stated in the
aforementioned document that “the president is obviously mistaken or confused
by the article or the statements I shared with him.
The “punk kid” remark was made…”
The term “punk kids” was not an arbitrary choice of the writer of
“Senate Brief.” It was a
verbatim statement which the author of the column reported, and in part, that I
personally also was present to witness. Your office was contacted for
comment (on several occasions), but after Interim Provost Jane Wells returned
our call “for the president’s office,” we called back to speak with you
personally without success.
It is true
that the INNOVATOR did not report that students made use of the GSU forum to
handle student grievances against faculty members.
The reality of this matter is that a number of grievances have been
reported and filed to date without response (per student report).
In terms of INNOVATOR writers’ numerous attempts to secure interviews
or statements in a timely manner, responses were not always forthcoming.
The university newspaper provides a forum for all members of the
community. We reiterate that we
cannot be responsible for decisions made by implicated parties.
Are we wrong in thinking that administrators, students, and faculty
members should be mutually accountable to one another?
I believe that with your
statement ,regarding the interviews of impacted parties, “were feeble at best
or did not occur at all,” you have committed the very error of which your memo
accuses us, looking only at ONE side of the story.
My office has received NO calls from your office requesting statements,
documentation, or requests for interviews with the writers of the articles that
appeared in the October 31st edition.
When you speak of “impacted parties,” are you speaking only of
members of the faculty? How
completely this attitude would negate the many interviews we have conducted with
students. One read of your letter would suggest that you are not
acknowledging students’ experiences at all. By registering as students at GSU,
have we become second class citizens?
We question
the validity of your assessment that attempts on our part to interview impacted
parties were “feeble at best or did not occur at all.”
With whom did you speak? I
checked with the INNOVATOR advisor and all of the INNOVATOR writers, and to
date, not one has been contacted by you. In
spite of your statements regarding the rights and traditions of the free press,
your response in the form of a “Letter to the Editor” was NOT sent to the
editor. You had told me in our
phone conversation (the afternoon of November 3,2000) that I would receive this
letter at the INNOVATOR. I never
did! Copies of your letter were, however, distributed to the
mailboxes of most other on-campus community members.
Was the decision to publicly respond in a forum outside of the paper a
response to the impassioned public remarks made by Professor Adriela Fernandez
at the November 3, 2000 faculty luncheon? The
INNOVATOR has contacted (by phone and email) Professor Fernandez for comment,
and to date, has not received a response. Members of the INNOVATOR staff
question this move that, in part, might be fashioned to disgrace the paper as a
whole. This side-step communication
in the form of a memo to the community feels like an attempted “muzzle.”
It would seem that at least a copy of your memo could have been
sent to the INNOVATOR mailbox. How
has the communication of your perceptions in this manner been a fair and
corrective measure to ensure that justice is served for all parties?
Why would individuals implicated in an article “jump up and down,”
shouting admissions of guilt in front of their bosses?
It was reported to the INNOVATOR that Provost Paul Keys, at the November
3, 2000 faculty luncheon, announced that an English department meeting would be
called to discuss the “serious issues” brought to light in the INNOVATOR.
I hope that this will be one step in the investigation of such student
complaints. It has come to the
attention of the INNOVATOR staff that the GSU Faculty Senate attempted to
resolve a “condemnation” of the recent “behavior” of the INNOVATOR.
Apparently, in a manner similar to yours, the faculty senate’s first
instinct was to act independently of the newspaper, passing judgment on matters
for which they had only partial information.
Though not formally invited, I was present today for the faculty senate
meeting. In response to concerns
about the INNOVATOR, the senators moved to form a task force to investigate
allegations made in articles appearing in the INNOVATOR.
At last, a fraction of the faculty is willing to discuss both sides of
the issues, though the majority voiced opinions to “support” faculty
members, based merely on the basis of friendships with them,
without
requiring any discussion of the allegations.
An issue
that was not raised in your “Letter to the Editor” is my duty as editor, and
Dr. de Laforcade’s role as advisor, to protect against libel the subjects of
all articles, as well as protecting the rights of the students writing the articles. I
have no right to discourage, let alone reject material that is not my
“taste.” I take full responsibility for all material in the INNOVATOR.
This is my job. To my knowledge, ALL of the information conveyed in the
October 31, 2000 edition of the INNOVATOR is accurate.
I require the writers to check their sources, provide documentation (i.e.
interview tapes and notes, phone and email records, signed affidavits, disclosed
photographs, etc.) of claims made in their articles.
If further questions exist, the editors put the article through a third
step of fact checking. (At times this step has included consultation with an
attorney.) Often, because of the
time required to “cover” our
writers, an article must be held back for further research. I have required
“research holds” on five articles since May 2000.
Articles are held until fact-checking attempts are completed.
The
INNOVATOR intends to continue reporting those challenges to the
“establishment” that community members bring to us as news leads. I don’t believe that these challenges emerge from ill will,
but from a sincere desire to contribute to the betterment and strengthening of
the university.
It seems to
be a popular misconception that INNOVATOR staff members are engaged
“in some sort of vendetta.” Such
self-motivated activity has no place in the newsroom. As I have already stated,
the majority of the leads received by the newspaper emerge from the student
body, FACULTY and STAFF! Are a
number of the issues important to INNOVATOR staff members as members of
the student body? Yes! As editor-in-chief, I find it sad that university faculty
members and/or administrators would stoop to the level of petty rumors and the
self-serving conclusion, “It must be a vendetta.” How many concerned faculty
members and administrators have taken the initiative to call and/or write to the
newspaper to ask questions about the validity of the news reported?
How many have asked even to speak to the writers responsible for
collecting the information to support claims in the articles?
Asking students who have not experienced any difficulty with identified
teachers and/or policies is only half of it!
Certainly, the students’ positive experiences with instructors,
implicated in news articles, are important to record by the administrators who
evaluate them, but to ignore and even slander those who allege unfair treatment
is callous and contradictory to the promises made in the opening remarks of
every GSU promotional pamphlet that I have read.
You stated,
“I have—and always will be a proponent of the free press,” and that you
are aware of the ”unfortunate possibility of what could happen when a free
press is muzzled,” but you choose not to contact the paper’s advisor as an
alternative to contacting us directly. It has also come to my attention that
some members of your administration do, indeed, intend to “muzzle” the
INNOVATOR. A letter in my
possession from the President and owner of Regional Publishing Corporation (the
contracted Palos Heights printer of the INNOVATOR) explains that the corporation
was recently contacted by a member of your administration who demanded that
Regional was “not to print any more issues of the INNOVATOR without first
calling“ the administrator, so that someone from the administration could go
out to the printing plant to “read the student newspaper’s contents and
approve printing…” Not only does this contradict your pledge, but it breaks
the law. Prior constraint is a serious offense. Staffers of the INNOVATOR have expressed disappointment
at this news, but none, who have been informed,
have claimed to be surprised. None
of us have been able to forget the four break-ins to the INNOVATOR office that
went unheeded by members of the administration and without full investigation.
Criminal damage to university property, damage to the personal belongings
of students, and the compromised safety of newsroom files all went without
remark by your office. Yet at this first cry of discomfort from faculty, you are
willing to attempt a public shaming of the student press without contacting us
even once about the matters at hand.
I am
insulted by your statement that you will not “allow the reputation of the
university and its faculty to be sullied by newspaper reporting that is
inaccurate, insulting, and that might be driven, in part, by self interest.” Self interest? What
do you think that I could possibly gain from this? Being the target of misguided anger from faculty members who
don’t feel that students have the right to express concerns that so directly
affect them? Hours of non-paid work
and the “reward” of a growing silence-fed distance between my professors and
me? The stinging possibility that
letters of recommendation for graduate school won’t get written because former
instructors might fear writing commendations for a student openly attacked by
the university president? The
telephone calls from scared and angry students who know the truth but are afraid
to share it, lest they be lambasted in a “memo” from the president’s pen?
Or the blind disapproval of “cheerleading” students who see nothing
but teachers they like being discussed “unfairly” but fail to question the
negative impact of identified teachers’ actions on their student peers?
The opportunity to spend days doing research to find the laws and
regulations that protect university students because our university
administration won’t do it? Or
might it be the fact that grades, my reputation, and more than a year of my life
is tied up in working to contribute positively to my university?
Please reconsider your “self-interest” comment.
I am a part of this university, too.
The degree that I earn will bear the same name of the school, that in
your closing remarks, you aim to defend. In
my perception, through your recent actions, you have not come close to defending
the rights of the students to whom we are jointly responsible.
Dr.
Fagan, you stated that you hope we can all “agree to disagree with honor and
fairness.” On your part, I
recognize neither honor nor fairness in regard to the INNOVATOR’s challenges.
To what code of ethics do you hold your professional conduct? Idealism has stumbled here, and I hope that after dealing
directly with the stated matters at hand, we can reach common ground where ALL
members of our community are valued as contributing members.
The
INNOVATOR shall continue to serve the Governors State University community to
the best of its team’s ability and hopes for a far more communicative
relationship with the president’s office.
Sincerely,
INNOVATOR
cc: the
Governors State University Community