Board of Trustees student representative proposed defunding student media
December 4, 2019
Editor’s Note: The Observer stands by the accuracy of its previous reporting on the content regulation issues first outlined for its readers in the Nov. 7 issue.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The CWU Board of Trustees’ student representative Alex Harrington proposed the complete and immediate defunding of student media at the Nov. 20 Services and Activities (S&A) meeting if the student media faculty advisers do not offer “acceptable” solutions to the conflict that has developed between The Observer, Central News Watch and certain administrative units of CWU. Harrington read a resolution draft into the record.
Harrington said he didn’t believe media outlets were adhering to their purpose on campus and using their funds appropriately by publishing what he said was “false” information.
Harrington, a senior political science major, was appointed to this position by Governor Jay Inslee and his term will run through June 2020. He has worked as an office assistant for the Dean of Students and is a voting member on the Services and Activities Fee Committee, the Student Conduct Council and the Election Commission.
In regards to the Board of Trustees, Harrington is a full voting member “on all issues except matters related to hiring or discipline of personnel, tenure of faculty, and collective bargaining agreements,” according to CWU’s website.
On Nov. 6, The Observer published an editorial outlining issues of content regulation and censorship by some departments on campus. Following the release of the editorial and a corresponding protest, staff members from The Observer and Central News Watch met with CWU administration and ASCWU to discuss a potential solution on Nov. 18.
“It came to light that a lot of the information in the articles that were published, were false,” Harrington said during the Nov. 20 S&A meeting.
Harrington went on to say that student media was aware the information was false before it was published and that the consensus between all parties at the meeting with student media, administration and ASCWU was that there was no censorship in these instances.
“We could not come to a consensus about student media publishing the fact that there was no censorship even though we came to the consensus that there was no censorship,” Harrington said.
“If they had that information, decided to publish it, then to me that shows a pretty deliberate and malicious attempt to kind of misrepresenting the actions and statements of individuals within the campus community,” Harrington said.
“The Observer and Central News Watch never agreed that there was no censorship,” Online Editor Mariah Valles said in a Nov. 19 Yakima Herald article. “There do not need to be corrections on our previous reporting.”
According to the S&A website, The Observer annually receives $54,061 and Central News Watch receives $10,000.
S&A Board member Joseph Bryant pointed out that the committee cannot make decisions based on the content student media publishes. Student media are protected by solid press freedom laws, he said, recalling the legal advice provided to him by the assistant attorney general for the State of Washington.
“I would be very intentional on our end to avoid any parts of content factoring into this for issues of not only [that] this could very absolutely be viewed as censorship of student media if we were to cut funding based on us not liking the content of an article,” Bryant said. “Or it could also be viewed as retaliatory by the university or by the committee.”
Bryant again stated that the S&A Committee would not be the correct place to address these issues on campus.
“I think it’s totally acceptable for us to be able to ask student media to come and answer questions as it relates to the spending of their allocation or is in line with what was being said,” Bryant said. “However, our purview would not be on the content of what is being published and posted there.”
Members of the committee also raised concerns about the specific wording of Harrington’s resolution. Lacy Lampkins, who advises the S&A Committee about the use of student funds, pointed out the delicateness of the words “misused funds.” Lampkins also said student journalists do not have a say in where funds are allocated.
“We fund The Observer to print the newspaper. So are we questioning how they’re spending the money to print the newspaper?” Lampkins said.
One of the board members, music professor Martin Kennedy, asked about the seriousness of using the word “malicious” instead of “negligence” when Harrington referred to student media’s “malice” in its reporting.
“There are a lot of words I use, but malicious, that perks my ears up when you said that,” Kennedy said. “‘Malicious’ is a different thing.”
S&A Parliamentarian Eric Bennett requested that the committee not speak further on this topic until after the new year because he felt it sounded like retaliation against students.
“By us taking their funding away, we’re basically ending their production and that, in my mind, is censorship,” Bennett said.
Harrington recognized that students in media ultimately have no say in how their funds are allocated.
“It’s not like we would bring in students,” Harrington said. “They have no bearing over the overarching mission of the organizations or their funding or anything like that. It is more of a question of the general mission of what we are funding and how we’re funding it.”
Those in attendance of the S&A meeting decided to hold off on discussing the matter further until January.
In an interview on Dec. 4, Harrington stood by the resolution he submitted during the S&A meeting on Nov. 20. He connected the defunding of student media to the overarching struggle of student loan debt and fees. Harrington said he was concerned that student media wasn’t actually providing a service to students by deliberately publishing material that he claims is known to be false.
“As students who are contributing fees to a fund like S&A, my perspective is that we are essentially shareholders,” Harrington said.
Harrington wants to bring the student media business manager and advisers into a meeting to discuss possible solutions for the issue. These individuals will be asked to attend an S&A funding meeting in January. He also said that he’s heard very little from staff, and that a student-led conversation would be valuable.
S&A is currently working with a subcommittee that would initiate contact with students to hear their views on various issues with S&A.
Harrington addressed student media’s goal to provide content that related to students and campus. The issue stems from the lack of publishing accurate material that benefited students, according to Harrington.
marie beckwith • Mar 12, 2020 at 5:40 pm
The travesesty is that you, Kyle, would even suggest that Alex retake political scievclasses. Governor Inslee appointed Alex based on his commitment and his leadership abilities. This is not 1998. You have a young person that is learning and growing and wants to make a difference. It would seem that you do not want Alex to have a voice or have an opinion. He has a voice and should be empowered to use his voice. Alex doesn’t need to sit at the back of the bus and remain quiet. He needs older adults guiding him and mentoring him. Kyle, you thinking that Alex should resign, just indicates your level of arrogance and ignorance. He is no where near what Trump thinks. The administration backed him.
Paul Stayback • Jan 15, 2020 at 1:02 pm
When I was on the BOD (2011/2012) I spent time on the S&A Com. and chaired it. I repeatedly saw the “reporters” of the paper make factual errors, misquote and misrepresent what people had said and done. When called to answer for these errors and omissions that only be described as organizational laziness and ineptitude, the reply was “they’re students, and mistakes happen”. In the same breath, they would use the shield of 1st amendment to protect product produced by incompetency often intermingled and driven with ideology and agenda.
Additionally, based on what I remember (memory is not the greatest I admit) the paper squandered money by not meeting contractual obligations and deadlines often resulting is payment of fines and fees. This is easily checked, and maybe worth it. If true, perhaps their funding should be pulled for being poor stewards of public, and student dollars.
Rob Schnelle • Dec 9, 2019 at 8:43 am
Mr. Harrington’s proposal aligns chillingly with the ethos of the Trump administration. Hostility to the First Amendment is on the rise, but it has no place in any institution calling itself a university. President Gaudino needs to show leadership here.
Mike Pearson • Dec 5, 2019 at 8:22 pm
Newspapers are always problematic. Because of the newspaper’s potential political power, local persons, who find the town or city newspaper is skewed, are reluctant to take them on. “Never pick a fight with a ($@#@#$%) who buys ink by the barrel.” There have always been good investigative reporters and independent souls making good journalism their life’s work. On the other hand . . .
Good folks who know better will hardly ever push back when a local newspaper is omitting coverage of a matter that deserves coverage, or when the newspaper is on the make & serves whoever has deep pockets. It doesn’t pay to annoy minions and stooges
Sometimes a local newspaper is staffed by persons who have implicit loyalties to countries not called The United States of America. Why pick on the student newspaper when the world outside is quite usually farther from any ideal standard of fairness or high quality than the town newspaper?
Rebecca Kennedy • Dec 5, 2019 at 5:48 pm
That BOD student’s proposal is inane. Yes, some information is inaccurate. When I was a dean (Bowers) at CWY, I was misquoted at times. Perhaps the Observer staff and advisors could offer a printed invitation for rebuttals and factual corrections. Defunding students media is a preposterous idea. It’s a freedom of the press thing.
Rebecca Kennedy
Adalaide Stevens • Dec 4, 2019 at 5:31 pm
As a former student that payed the fees that contribute to the S&A fund I believe that it is entirely reasonable to demand that the funds be used in the publication of accurate material.
Using the S&A money, from compulsory student fees, in order to publish absurdly hyperbolic, attention seeking, and plainly false articles shows a utter disrespect for the students. Many of these student desperately scrape together the money to pay these fees by working multiple jobs, taking out loans, and going without.
Furthermore, it is unclear to me how Harrington’s position on the Board of Trustees has anything to do with the action being proposed by him and other members of the S&A committee. These positions are entirely seperate and the emphasis placed on the Board of Trustee’s position further demonstrates the papers propensity to employ tabloid-like tactics in an attempt to up readership.
Kyle Alm • Dec 4, 2019 at 3:37 pm
As a former BOD member, and Legislative Liaison during the 1998 session when we passed the bill to create a voting student on the Board of Trustees, I would like to say that this is a travesty and goes against everything that we wanted the position created for.
Taxpayers are well represented on the board for their diminishing share of what it costs to run CWU. Student dollars fund an ever increasing share of the cost of education and have not reveived increased representation on the BOT. The administration doesn’t need another voice on the BOT.
Mr. Harrington should resign immediately and be forced to retake his Political Science classes. This is a shocking amount of ignorance for a “student leader.”