Amid the furor over The Gustavian Weekly’s coverage of Case Day come actions and reactions. Removal of copies of The Weekly in the wake of the annual Case Day coverage, which coincides with a scholarship weekend, has been a consistent theme of the past two years. On Thursday, March 25, 2010. The Weekly settled one aspect of this in a public Judicial Board hearing, brought by The Weekly against Senior Communication Studies and History Major Mary Cunningham.
Assistant Dean of Students Deirdre Rosenfeld said that the case signified the “healthy, vibrant, conflict-ridden community” that is Gustavus. “Not conflict-ridden in that we’re full of angst. It’s that we critically disagree. That’s what makes us a community of independent thinkers,” Rosenfeld said.
The Weekly’s editorial board took Cunningham to the Judicial Board over her admitted movement of some 300 copies of the newspaper from the Campus Center to the Carlson International Center and Prairie View Hall, which they alleged violated Part III and Part VII of the Gustie Guide’s Statement of Student Responsibilities.
This case was notable for many reasons. Besides being the first to address movement and removal of a campus publication, Rosenfeld noted that “open hearings don’t happen very often. In this case, one side said it was a community issue, and the other party agreed,” Rosenfeld said. Other administrators can’t remember an equivalent public hearing in their decades here. This time, the public was invited and welcomed. Many campus members appeared to watch the proceedings.
Cunningham proposed the hearing be made public. “I agreed with it, as long as The Weekly could cover it to have a public conversation about what [constitutes] theft,” Senior Religion Major and Editor-in-Chief of The Weekly Jake Seamans said.
Cunningham said she moved to make the hearing public to highlight the issue across campus. “This is a conversation that needs to take place on campus [concerning the coverage of case day], so I did not deny my involvement. If I had denied my involvement I am confident the case would have gone nowhere due to a lack of evidence,” Cunningham said.
Seamans pursued the claims through the Judicial Board because he felt it was “the best avenue to resolve it. To protect our ability to distribute our newspapers is incredibly important to The Weekly. If someone is keeping us from distributing our papers, it’s censorship, whether it is individuals in the community or from [the] top down,” Seamans said.
Cunningham said her actions constituted protest over the content of the Case Day article. “We believed that the large pictures of alcohol portrayed Gustavus in a negative light and did not accurately reflect Gustavus,” Cunningham said. “My defense was pretty simple—I didn’t steal anything. This group of students was merely protesting something we felt was wrong.”
“I don’t think what she was doing was protest, plain and simple,” Seamans said. “Generally when you are trying to protest, you want to tell people, or raise awareness about the issue you are trying to address. She didn’t do anything to [be]come public until I requested a J-Board hearing,” Seamans said.
“I firmly believe that by treating the papers respectfully, carefully relocating them and making sure they were available to students, we did not disrespect the papers,” Cunningham said. She added that she was “making a public statement that displaying alcohol in that fashion on such an important weekend was not appropriate and should not be tolerated by The Weekly readership.”
Cunningham mentioned the way in which coverage of such issues “negatively impacts the school’s ability to raise money.”
“After speaking with several administrative offices on campus, we felt that the only choice was to relocate the papers to residence halls,” Cunningham said.
“I believe that our coverage of Case Day was appropriate,” mentioning that “binge drinking is a serious issue at Gustavus and Case Day is a large part of that. Our coverage is a large part of that, to start a serious conversation about the issues that face our campus,” Seamans said.
The Weekly’s argument in the hearing, according to Seamans, “was pretty straightforward. You know, to find basically three things. One, if she did it. She said she did. The next thing to find was whether it was a violation of students’ responsibility. If it was, what would be an appropriate sanction?”
As outlined in the staff box of the newspaper, each copy of The Weekly after the first, costs 50 cents apiece.
“The newspaper has historically been free. Besides, we [still] made it available to students. 50 cents after your first copy? If I am guilty of what I have been accused of, then so are literally thousands of Gusties, administrators and professors,” Cunningham said.
“Since I was Managing Editor two years ago, we’ve had the 50 cents stipulation for each additional copy. We’ve always charged for them, and there have been situations where we have received funds for them,” Seamans said.
While the hearing and the issues confronted may have been public, the outcome was not. “Students’ individual privacy is our most important concern,” Rosenfeld said. “Judicial records are federally protected.”
For the purposes of a campus conversation, “J-board isn’t always the best venue,” Rosenfeld said.
Seamans agreed, saying that he was “disappointed” that the results weren’t made public. “This would go a long way to aiding the conversation,” Seamans said.
“The open hearing doesn’t bring the issue to any sort of resolution. The public won’t know what the College has deemed to be the outcome,” Rosenfeld said. However, she did add that hearings such as these are to “seek justice.”
“[People] want authority to say you are either right or wrong, that’s what this community seeks,” Rosenfeld said.
“Public discussion on issues like this is a positive thing for the campus. This is an issue that needs to be addressed,” Seamans said.
“The best part about this whole thing is that a conversation is taking place on campus that is long overdue—not only about Case Day, but also about binge drinking,” Cunningham said.
“Even if it’s painful, it’s a rich opportunity for our community to talk about what happens here,” Rosenfeld said.
Editor’s Note: This article was also published in The Weekly’s April 16, 2010 print edition. This story has been updated to reflect small changes that were made before it was published in the print edition.
Editor’s note on the comment section: I would like to take this opportunity to remind comentators on this article that The Weekly mads a complaint against Mary Cunningham for section 3 of the Statement of Student Responsibilities, specifically “failure to respect College Property or the property of others” and section 7, referring to the an interference of The Weekly’s right to distribute newspapers.
I would also like to urge everyone to treat one another and the parties involved in this issue with respect.
I commend The Weekly for taking this case to J-Board – freedom of speech and freedom of the press should be protected at all costs. Censorship should not be tolerated at Gustavus!
In addition, you have started a much needed conversation regarding binge drinking at Gustavus, and this case has taken that to the next level! Its amazing how other schools and the outside community are also talking about binge drinking and censorship because of you! Way to go Weekly!
The idea that this would happen two years in a row, and under similarly deceptive circumstances makes me lose faith in Gustavus as a place for critical thought. The narrow-mindedness that is behind any attempt to “remove” what people might consider “unsightly” is evidence of an inability to understand the rights of others, and what it means to be part of a community.
The individuals opposed to the discussion of case day in The Weekly could have made scholarship weekend a time to show visitors that Gustavus is a college which prides itself in openness and honest debate about the things which confront it, instead they showed that like many far inferior colleges, parts of the Gustavus community are so immature and insecure that they wish to deceive people and gloss over Gustavus’ problems.
It seems entirely too cavalier for the accused to say that they came forward for the purposes of discussion, because they didn’t “have to” come forward at all. This sort of thinking points to a lack of respect for the Gustavus community, and a perverse form of “honesty” which only comes to light when the accused believes that they have something to gain.
As for concerns about Gustavus not being able to raise money because of such coverage, I have to say this: there is something to be said for integrity, and if some potential investors/philanthropic partners have a problem donating to a college who prides themselves in their integrity, perhaps we should ask ourselves if we really want money from those individuals/groups.
We do not “make our lives count” through deception, and deception has no place in our core values.
As an alumni of Gustavus I was extremely disturbed when I heard about these events. I am a close friend of Mary Cunningham and therefore must support her. However, that is not the only reason I support her case and find the actions and claims of The Weekly, specifically its editor, horrendous. While I completely understand the reasoning behind reporting on case day, there was no pressing need for it to have been on the front page, except maybe to prove a point because the administration pulled the papers last year. If this had not been the case, the actions of Cunningham, AND MANY OTHER STUDENTS, may have been prevented. The fact of the matter is that this headline occurred during scholarship week. If the image we want of Gustavus is that of a major party school, then go for it. But I am guessing that many alums and administrators would not be pleased with this.
I understand that case day is a long standing tradition for Gustavus students and many participate, myself included. However, this does not mean it is an image that prospective students and their parents should see when determining which college they or their children will attend. What The Weekly and its editor, Jake Seamans, is doing to Mary is completely outline and offensive. They had no right to continue to single her out and write about her the way they are. While they may not agree with her actions she is still a human being and deserves respect. I have completely lost respect for The Weekly, of which I was an avid reader.
Before making false claims in reporting, check your facts. You may claim that the policy is 50 cents for each copy after the first but this was NEVER enforced. I took more than one copy every time, in fact when a half page picture of me was published in an article about gymnastics two years ago I took multiple copies. Between my friends, family, and I, somewhere around 50 papers were taken because my parents wanted to send copies to my family and neighbors who never got to see me compete in college. I was never taken to J-board over that, nor any other student I know. We were also never required to pay for those copies. To say that the policy has always been enforced is nothing more than a lie.
Aryn Bell ’09
Aryn,
I understand your wish to defend your friend, however perhaps you ought to take your own advice and get your facts straight; especially before using such forceful language while speaking about the issue at hand.
Starting with the 50 cents per extra copy — enforcement is not the question here, and has nothing to do with the “wrong-ness” of an action. If you routinely went to a clothing store and took clothing without paying for it, regardless of whether or not you were caught, or whether they had security personnel who chased you down, what you’d be doing would be wrong. If you then went and took 50 pairs of pants in one day, and the clothing store finally decided to prosecute you, after your own admission to the theft, you have no legitimate recourse in attempting to say that what you did was ok. Ignorance is not an accepted plea in most any judicial system, and certainly not in the United States — nor should it be at Gustavus.
Now, as for the previous instance of this sort of thing last year, we have some clarifying to do. To The Weekly’s knowledge (or at least to mine, as a former member of The Weekly staff), the administration as a whole did not pull the papers at that time. Select members of a particular branch of the administration may have been involved, but much of what is claimed to have happened is hearsay, and certainly not an official stance or action made by “the administration.” Regardless, whether the administration did it or not is a moot point — it still would have been wrong. I can also assure you that if specific individuals had come forward admitting to their involvement publicly, The Weekly would have been strongly inclined to prosecute them through J-Board.
With regard to your demand for respect: people, regardless of their position in a community, do not automatically deserve respect. Respect must be earned. Disrespecting a community of which you claim to be a part does not go very far in earning you such respect, nor does ignorance. I do not respect individuals who attempt to manipulate the media, suppress ideas, or censor any group for the good of “the community.” This is a fascist tendency, and I would have hoped a Gustavus grad could recognize this — we do after all pride ourselves in our quality education. Perhaps we are worse off than I thought.
Once again, I understand your wish to defend your friend. I do not know Mary, and so I cannot speak to her personality or character in other matters. However, this is not what’s at issue. The question is whether what she did was wrong. The answer is a definitive yes, and those who fail to see this, have no place in any institution of higher learning.
Thanks for your thoughts, Galen. I could not agree more.
Additionally, I think what is important is that Mary Cunningham claimed that what she was doing was “silent protest.” However, this is not a case regarding her right to protest. Neither the Judicial Board, nor the Weekly have in any way infringed upon her right to protest. Those who protest want their ideas to be seen and heard. Mary tried to do this secretly. For those of you who do not agree, I urge you to read the following article: http://www.msureporter.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=7fa0db9f-e273-45b1-97bf-0300dee824f8
Yes, as Americans we have basic rights, but those rights have limitations. I cannot go out and murder someone and get away with it by calling it “protest.” In the same way, Mary cannot steal/censor/”relocate” the newspapers and call it “protest.” Freedom of the press has limitations as well – libel cannot be printed.
As Galen has said, what she did was wrong. Taking papers without paying for them is theft.
Also, I would like to point out the irony of this case. In removing the papers, Mary (and whomever helped her) tried to cover up a problem at Gustavus, supposedly so that prospective students would not find out about alcohol use on campus. I hate to break it to any prospective students and their parents, but alcohol is an issue on EVERY college campus. But this story of “Case Day” has lived on for months now and its coverage has spread. Outside media sources (Mankato Free Press, MSU Reporter, the Associated Collegiate Press) have picked up on it and are continuing to publish reports about it. So continue to push the ordeal in front of J-Board and it will continue to appear in the media.
Galen,
I think it is important for you to realize that not everyone agrees with you. Therefore, while i respect your opinion because EVERYONE deserves respect, i do not agree with your methods of getting your point across. Putting other people down, your fellow gusties nonetheless, is just uncalled for. You say you don’t want to make judgments about people because you don’t know them but that is exactly what you are doing.
The issue is no longer if what she did was wrong or not. The hearing occurred and legally no one but the parties involved should know the outcome. The issue now is The Weekly’s continued reporting and action. That is where I find fault. Enough harm has been done to Mary’s reputation. Its time to move on to the discussion that NEEDS to be had. One the Weekly article claims to want to start, that of binge drinking and Case Day at Gustavus.
Aryn,
You’re going to have to actually come up with a legitimate argument against what I’m saying before you can brush it off that easily. You may also wish to avoid any attempt at supposed “popular appeals.” The fact that some people disagree with me has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of what I am saying. If you would like to claim some sort of relativism, that’s all well and good, but by then participating in this discussion you give away your need for there to be a right or wrong course of action.
I think I have been rather level headed about all of this. I have avoided any sort of gut-reaction ad hominem that I might have otherwise been inclined to pursue because I thought it was possible that those on the so-called “other side” of this issue may have simply mis-understood what it is/was that they were advocating when they advocated the censorship of The Weekly. Hell, I even avoided mentioning Mary’s name in my original post.
Now, what methods exactly am I using to get my point across? Reason? A belief that acts of censorship leads to a weak and pathetic form of society? I wonder if you could be a bit more clear about what it is that I am doing that is so horrendous.
Also, why is the issue no longer about whether it was wrong or not? Isn’t this exactly what the issue is? And what continued reporting and action are you referring to? This article was written almost a week ago (it was then later posted to this site on Saturday), and I have yet to see any comments from current Weekly staff members or other articles on the subject. As far as I can tell, there is no current action being taken by The Weekly to draw this out any farther than it has been. I, on the other hand, do not mind dragging it out a bit longer if it means getting clear on what acceptable behavior in an academic society entails.
As for Mary’s reputation… While I am not convinced her actions can be taken to be a protest in the “nothing I did was wrong, I just expressed a political opinion” sort of way, I’ll grant that it was potentially a sort of protest—an illegal sort. To be honest, I really don’t care what we call it. However, the fact remains that it was a public act. Public acts tend to catch the attention of the public. The public is then free to judge that act however they want. If Mary didn’t want her reputation to be on the line, perhaps she shouldn’t have done what she did. It’s as simple as that. Or, what is more likely, is that she should not have expected that in coming forward she would be universally praised as some sort of hero—perhaps it is her, and apparently you, who need to realize that not everyone agrees with what was done.
Furthermore, in my opinion, issues of honesty are just as important, if not more so, than issues of binge drinking on campus—it is hard to say that the “more important” conversation is the one about binge drinking at this point.
I believe what Aryn is trying to say is that there are some people that believe that Mary did nothing wrong, there are some that believe she did. These are opinions about a matter, some people may not agree with your opinion of it. As you said those opinions have no bearing on what the truth or falsehood is in the matter, but neither do your opinions. None of us have a say in if it is right or wrong because we do not control the rules.
Now with your comment on someone’s understanding of irony I would assume you know the definition. It is ironic now, after you said you avoiding letting emotion alter your words that your emotions shine through in your post.
Acts of censorship may lead to a weak society but it can also show a strength in the society’s ability to control itself.
Finally, the issues of honesty. I think its great that a faithful Weekly alumni would want the truth to be brought out. But I would also expect that you would want the truth to come out about how, according to the rules of the institution, the Weekly was wrong as well.
“None of us have a say in if it is right or wrong because we do not control the rules.”
Really? What does this even mean? Who controls the rules concerning right and wrong?
“Finally, the issues of honesty. I think its great that a faithful Weekly alumni would want the truth to be brought out. But I would also expect that you would want the truth to come out about how, according to the rules of the institution, the Weekly was wrong as well.”
Really? The Weekly was wrong according to the rules of the institution? How so? If you mean to refer to the rather flimsy bit of argument around “promoting alcohol” you can stop right now. The article did not promote the consumption of alcohol any more than this post promotes the consumption of alcohol. If you walk away from this wanting a shot of tequila, I cannot be blamed for that. Does a news article about a murder promote murders?
Now, Jeff Stucco can say what he wants, but the fact of the matter is that if The Weekly violated its stance toward the promotion of alcohol, there would have been hell to pay—and there hasn’t been hell to pay. The argument relating to promoting alcohol is tangential at best.
In this case the school controls right and wrong, I’m not talking about the inhert value of the actions but in accordance with the set rules if it was a correct action not. Also I just mean that the Weekly displayed alcohol with a connection to the school, that is not correct according to the rules. That is all.
The reason the 50 cents per issue policy was put into place last year was not to prevent people from taking 2 copies every once in a while. The Weekly does not have the time, energy or people to man each and every stand 24 hours a day… that would be ridiculous.
The 50 cents per issue policy was put into place to remind students just like yourself and Mary that although the Weekly doesn’t charge for the paper it does carry a monetary value.
Over $50,000 is spent each year on publishing and the Weekly can only afford to print what its budget allows – a budget that is half funded by the college. When individuals such as yourself take 50 copies of a paper – depending on how many copies are made that week and how popular the paper is – you may be preventing 50 people from enjoying the paper. Because every student at GAC pays for the paper (since half of the paper’s budget comes from the College) every student should have a right to read the Weekly in its physical form.
It frustrates me that students at GAC feel the need to take it upon themselves to censor one of the most visible student journalism projects we have on campus. If you disagree with a story, write a letter to the editor, tell your friends how you feel, bring it up in classes (when appropriate)… find another avenue to express your disagreement. Moving papers in an effort to hide the paper from others, thereby preventing them from enjoying a publication that is meant for every past, present and future member of the community should not and cannot be viewed as acceptable at Gustavus.
This whole stink reminds me- when the new york times covers genocide in Darfur, they are
highlighting the issue- in a clear case of promotion of genocide! coverage of bad things
is unwarranted and only reflects poorly on the goings-on of the humyn race. Outsiders
might get the wrong idea about what this Earth is about. Just like binge drinking has no
place in college, brutality and cruelty have never been a part of the planet earth *I*
know about.
Therefore the NEW YORK TIMES is creating the problem by giving the genociders free press!
If there must be coverage, and we must stare directly into the face of scary and sad
things (and who wants to do that? that’s why I turn the TV off by 8, after lawrence
welk!!) why not have a few pictures of parts of Darfur that AREN’T being genocided for a
fully balanced story? Because objectivity with no underlying drive or purpose besides
lilly-livered objectivity is the purpose of news.
You see, when I look in my backyard, I see kids playing at the school playground across
the way. They MUST have playgrounds there in darfur africa. They have playgrounds with
little kids playing. Please Put a few pictures of those playgrounds next to the
genociding PIX. (PIX- that’s a little ‘net lingo’ my niece taught me- LOL!!).
You know, i was better off not knowing about the fights in Africa’s capital building,
(darfur), because now i’m thinking *I* might have something to do with the problem and
that’s sad and bad! *I* don’t want to have to do anything to change anything. Someone
should just go ahead and do something about all the problems. Talking wastes time!
especially when MY mind is made up!
anyway I think when you ignore something it generally goes away, as least as to the
extent that I care! besides ignoring it, coverage of it must also stop because awareness
of things are the first step towards doing them. The recycling bin was made for a reason,
and that reason is to put the New York Times and the weekly in it. Because I dont like
the things they talk about because they alternately want to do the things I read about in
them… with the New York Times, I read it and am overcome with an urge to genocide, I
don’t know where it comes from. When I read the Weekly, i’m overcome with an urge to
attend on campus events, and drink. I don’t know where it comes from.
lets shake on it. from here on out, no more disagreeing about things, alright everybody?
…and I know that WE’RE always right, so no issue there as far as I’m concerned…
-Patty Johnson ’39
(and no more talking about things that *I* don’t like!! weekly, and the new york times,
I’m looking at you! to the recycling with you!)
Laura,
I completely agree with you comment “If you disagree with a story, write a letter to the editor, tell your friends how you feel, bring it up in classes (when appropriate)… find another avenue to express your disagreement.”
But can somebody please explain to me why the Weekly and the Weekly’s editors decided to hire a MSU reporter to cover the story? Why the weekly decided to take this to J Board in the first place rather than fight it out in its own pages?
To me it seems that the Weekly caused a PR nightmare – hurting itself, Mary, and Gustavus. This all seems so petty to me – it was ~300 out of how many papers? How many students/faculty/visitors were limited from getting a paper if they wanted one? Aren’t there more important campus topics to write about (i.e. new academic building, upcoming capital campaign, student/faculty research)?
Somebody please explain the logic behind all of this!
-Chris Edelbrock ’09
Perhaps Jake or someone on the current staff can clarify for us how many papers were published that week. The number of papers printed is typically decided on a weekly basis, based on suspected demand. A lower publishing week might mean only 1,200 papers – which would put the moved 300 copies at 25% of the total printed papers. I suspect more papers were printed for that particular weekend, but I’m not sure.
What’s this about an MSU reporter? According to the online version, it was written by the assistant editor – whom I assume is a GAC student? …I’d like to hear more about this aspect of the story.
MSU Reporter Links:
http://media.www.msureporter.com/media/storage/paper937/news/2010/04/06/LettersToTheEditor/The-True.Meaning.Of.Forensics-3900467.shtml
http://media.www.msureporter.com/media/storage/paper937/news/2010/03/30/Editorial/Censorship.Is.Not.A.Form.Of.Protest-3896919.shtml
Mankato Free Press:
http://mankatofreepress.com/local/x1687701281/Gustavus-dispute-isn-t-done-brewing
So, The Weekly knew that it could be construed as biased, and hired a third party to report on the precedings in order to maintain some amount of neutrality, and that fell through.
Do we really want to fault The Weekly for attempting to maintain neutrality?
Neutrality is something that should be upheld by the paper within by not publishing any articles that are bias. That is a very difficult thing to do by any standard because an article must take a stand on one side or the other to be enticing to read. But if the paper truly wanted to maintain neutrality that is what they would have to do. Simply report the facts nothing more nothing less.
The MSU Reporter is an editorial article that is full of slanderous statements. Do not believe what is published there or in the letter to the editor. Also, it should be noted that the Weekly “hired” an MSU reporter to write the story even though the “public” hearing was closed to anyone outside of the Gustavus community.
Charlie Strey made it very clear that if you were not a Gustavus student, faculty or staff that you needed to leave. Ironic how less than 24 hours after the hearing the reporter was released of his duties…. The MSU Reporter editorial is dated prior to The Weekly article.
The reporter clearly used information he should not have had access to write the false information in the MSU Reporter.
Classy of The Weekly to be so unethical and to blatantly violate her rights on campus. Anyone know if this is being pursued?
Thanks to everyone who has left a comment here. We appreciate your contributions.
I would like to remind everyone here that our comment policy states that anyone who is posting a comment here must use their full name.
Thanks.
Tom Lany
Web Editor, The Gustavian Weekly
The only individuals here that are using fake names are those unwilling to stand by the things that they say. Presumably this means you, someone who appears to have been trying too hard at sarcasm, and one(?) individual with a taste for the classics. So, three people…
Also, I’m not so sure ironic means what you think it means, but that is neither here nor there, I understood what you were trying to say.
Irony can also describe an outcome of events that is opposite to what would have been expected, in this case the reporter apparently went through unorthodox channels to get a story. I commend reporters for this to bring out the news, but they also must realize what they are doing is against the rules. The irony is that presumably Charles Strey had no one that was not associated with Gustavus leave. So now there should be no way this information would get out but it did, hence it is ironic because it is contrary to what would have been expected.
David, you appear to be making up a context in which this individual’s use of “Ironic” makes sense. Take a look at it’s actual use:
“Charlie Strey made it very clear that if you were not a Gustavus student, faculty or staff that you needed to leave. Ironic how less than 24 hours after the hearing the reporter was released of his duties…. The MSU Reporter editorial is dated prior to The Weekly article.”
I’m done talking about the irony bit though, it’s a pointless conversation and completely beside the point.
What escapes me is why the Weekly did not ask to be reimbursed for those copies before bringing the case to J-Board, and if they did why is that information not published with the rest of the coverage of the story. Also, The Weekly does have freedom of print and press but they also know that since half of their budget is paid for by the College I would think that they would, to some extent, adhere to and respect the wishes of the College or risk losing that funding. To my understanding funding from the College is a privilege, not a right. I would believe that the College, while still allowing The Weekly to exist, is not required to support it monetarily. They could take their funding away at anytime for a reason such as “Does not meet funding expectations” or something along those lines. The basic freedoms do not stop that. It might be said to be suppressing the freedom of speech but if the College believes that the Weekly is not worthy of the money that they give them then they can stop funding them. There is no Constitution of the College, that I am aware of, that states there MUST be a college newspaper or that the College Must support one. Also the Weekly staff knowingly published Case Day articles on the Scholarship weekend. They knew that particular issue would come out then and be in the Campus Center. I think it would have been very mature and upstanding of the Weekly to simply ask the college about that content for that week. If the College was ok with it then it would have been publish, if they weer not then the Weekly could publish it regardless, through their rights of press and speech, or be respectful of the monetary doner wishes and postpone the article(s) a week, even though it may be considered a minuet form of censorship the article(s) are still published in their entirety and in a timely matter to address the topic of Case Day. A very simple, easy but overdue solution to this problem. Finally, Weekly staff if you want to make a legitimate argument have fully thought out reasons and argue those instead of hiding behind the Bill of Rights. If you are concerned with the theft of the papers then address that, don’t bring basic rights into it. All that does it make the matter more sticky then it already is.
I hope both parties find this post insightful and conduct themselves in a more thought out manner in the future.
Unfortunately what you describe here is exactly the sort of thing that would make Gustavus a weak and pathetic place—a place I would not be proud to associate myself with in the least. An academic institution should never be made to be anything less than honest about itself. To propose that it should ever do otherwise seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the point of an institution of higher learning.
It is true that the administration has no obligation to support The Weekly monetarily. It is also true that if the college were to cease to support The Weekly, I would be one step closer to having a pathetic alma mater. The Weekly is one of the few reasons I would ever donate to Gustavus.
I believe that the Weekly is a good creative outlet for journalists and other people. Also I am not suggesting that the college should cease to fund the Weekly or eliminate it just simply stating that it COULD happen, not SHOULD. But I do believe that the Weekly should use their rights respectively. Given the freedom of speech and press do give you the opportunity to say what you please, I would also hope that one would respect that right and not abuse it. The Weekly has apparently violated the stipulations that the school put on them in correspondence in coverage of the topic of alcohol. I believe that is covered in the Mankato Reporter article mentioned above several times, Titled “Gustavus Dispute isn’t done…”. I believe that Mary should take responsibility for her actions, which she has. But also the Weekly should to take responsibility for their actions.
I think it is great that you support the Weekly so valiantly, but if the school newspaper is the only thing you like about Gustavus it would appear you picked the wrong school to attend.
Let’s lay out a couple of things I hope we can all agree upon.
1. Free speech is always free or it is never free at all and exists only so long as what you say is agreeable to those in power.
AND
2. Silencing others speech is not a valid execution of ones own free speech rights.
There has been a lot of talk as this being an action of “protest”. I think that is clearly true. What is being overlooked by some is that not all forms of protest are protected speech. Violence can be a form of protest, yet is not protected (rightfully so, I’d hope we’d all agree). Burning ones draft card (as happened at Gustavus during Vietnam on the steps of Christ Chapel) is a valid form of protest, yet not legal. Stealing or moving newspaper with content you find objectionable IS a valid form of protest, yet it does not need to be permissible.
While I disagree with Mary’s actions, I admire her for being up front and honest about the fact that she was, in part, responsible. Examples abound of people defying the rules to do what they believe to be right and just. I don’t believe what Mary did was right or just, but it is not protest if everyone agrees with the action. Sometimes protest lead to massive (or small) change, and sometimes to nothing at all. Sometimes those in the minority are exonerated and revered in the future. Sometimes they are not.
Good for Mary for not denying her actions if she believes them to be just. Good for the Weekly to pursue a course of justice after a perceived wrong was done on them. And good for the Judicial Board for applying the rules, regardless of any perceived value the action in question may or may not have possessed, in a pursuit of justice within the framework of rules of Gustavus. Whatever the outcome from Judicial Board, I hope all will take the decision and live with it. We have the ability to break rules and laws when we feel it is the just thing to do, yet in doing so we are breaking our social contract and must therefore accept the consequences and hope our actions spur the change so desperately sought after.
There are obviously other issues at play now, including the ability of the Weekly to publish the story in question (a problem I have no ability to adequately judge, and would be rife with loose interpretation just as it would coming from most people).
Finally, I just want to disagree with one thing my friend Galen said in an earlier comment. People do automatically deserve respect, but with the understanding that it can easily be lost and only regained with greater difficulty. I hope we all treat newly met people with more than a passing level of disdain, but instead respect them with the intrinsic rights our constitution bestows upon them and then some. Without a basic level of respect society would breed contempt and division. That is not something for which we should strive. And don’t ever let one action weigh too heavily against the sum of all deeds one has performed, lest we all find ourselves with the scale of morality tilted against us. Remember, as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”
Also, in all fairness, this story, this issue, isn’t about Mary. I don’t know Mary, yet this story is important to me. And I think she probably agrees, otherwise she wouldn’t be taking the stand she is, even if it is on the opposite side of what I believe.
Eric Nelson ’07
I’ll have to respectfully disagree on this one. Society needs a certain level of tolerance of others, not respect. Respect is something much more than a lack of contempt and division. However, perhaps we simply ascribe different things to the word “respect.” In which case, our disagreement is in semantics. As it is, I agree with the sentiment expressed in what you said, if not its exact details.
The result in this case is the same anyway: a lack of respect.
I believe “respect” is the both positive acknowledgment of a person, place or thing AND the actions that coincide with that positive regard. While a level of tolerance would just allow that person place or thing to exist with neither a POSITIVE or NEGATIVE regard for it.
Theft is the wrong word and really shouldn’t be used at all in this context. What Mary did was not theft, bottom line. She took the papers and put them in other Gustavus buildings. Technically, the Gustavus community still had access to these papers. Had she taken them and kept them to herself or thrown them away, stealing would be a good description.
However, there is good argument for Mary deterring free speech. By removing the papers from high traffic areas with the intention of stifling an article written by the Gustavian is not a protest, it is taking away someone’s right to speak freely. Protests should absolutely allow for both sides to actively participate and by removing one side from the discussion (or making it more difficult for them to partake through the article), Mary took away the rights of the Gustavian.
Let us not forget, though, that Gustavus is a private institution and that by Gustavus’ allowance only are we granted free speech. I am very proud to be an Alumni of a private institution that allows speech to flow as freely as it does at Gustavus. It should be noted, however, that it is not our right at Gustavus, it is most definitely our privilege.
“We the public, are easily, lethally offended. We have come to think of taking offense as a fundamental right. We value very little more highly than our rage, which gives us, in our opinion, the moral high ground. From this high ground we can shoot down on our enemies and inflict heavy fatalities. We take pride in our short fuses. Our anger elevates, transcends.”
— Salman Rushdie.
Well said Mr. Rushd—I mean Palmer.
Just thought it relevant here, for both sides.
We should note however, that offense and rage are far different than disappointment. I can’t speak for others, but I am not offended by anything that has happened here, or in The Weekly or its treatment of this issue.
We should also note our relative inability to properly map emotion onto written word without blatant clues, which are not often forthcoming in normal conversation.
Aside from that, I agree with the sentiment.
I have to admit that I am on the fence about this one. While I never support censorship, the content of the article doesn’t even portray case day for what it is. As a participant of case day two of my four years at Gustavus, the experience is quite disparate from that portrayed in the article.
The number of people who actually participate in case day is a small minority. The number of participants who actually adhere to the rules of 24 beers in 24 hours is even smaller than that, and these are, in my experience, the same people that are doing keg-stands every other weekend. Me, my friends, and the majority of people who “participated” in those case days drank about as much as we typically did on the weekends, only just starting much earlier in the day; giving us the opportunity to meander to the various all-day parties that were going on.
I don’t state any of this in defense of case day as a tradition. I agree that it promotes dangerous drinking habits that can have disastrous consequences. Rather, I state this because the article portrays the event as widely attended, and generally accepted by students (except those PLEDGE kids). It uses quotes from random anonymous students who talk about the “experience” and say that it is “the shit.” It insinuates that there is some sort of campus pressure to participate.
Never did I feel pressured to drink at Gustavus, even on Case Day. If I chose to, there were plenty of avenues for me to do so; however, if I chose not to, there were as many other things to do and other people to do them with. Some weekends, I would drink more than I should. Other weekends, I could literally be found in the chapel, sight-reading from hymnals with my friends from choir. Many weekends I participated in campus events sponsored by student groups. We’d drive to Mankato, get dinner, see a move, or just bum around the mall. And, there was always plenty of homework to do. This, I feel, is more reflective of the typical Gustavus experience. Despite the rural locale of the campus, and despite our modest student population, you are never in want of options.
I don’t think it is the weekly’s responsibility to portray Gustavus in a “good light.” That is what the admission office is for; however, the weekly does have the journalistic responsibility to portray the college in a true light, which I feel this article failed to do. Yes, Gusties drink a lot. No, they do not imbibe more than other college students. Binge drinking is a systemic national problem more likely linked to our high drinking age and enforcement systems than specific college traditions.
Regardless of the poor content of the article, I do believe that Mary should not have relocated them. But, I do believe in the spirit behind her actions. I err in stating that portraying the college in a good light is solely the responsibility of the Admission Office. It is the responsibility of every Gustie. New student admissions matters. It is the lifeblood of the institution that you will call your alma mater. 15 years from now when you hand your resume to that interviewer and she sees “Gustavus Adolphus College,” the reputation of the college is doing to determine whether she says “Oh! You’re a Gustie!” or ” Oh…. you’re a Gustie…” and neither participation in, nor improper characterization of Case Day is doing much to aid that reputation.
Jacob,
This whole situation is petty. The case day article that you ran only did not accurately represent the entire student body’s experience. To run the article during an admissions weekend event was distasteful. Of course the Weekly has free speech to publish anything it would like to. But, since the Weekly is the voice of the Gustavus campus it has more power than other voices. With power, comes responsibility – the Weekly failed to show tact by running this article on that weekend. Why bring Mary to J-Board? To prove your point? To make Mary feel bad for doing what she thought was right? To make yourself feel big? The moved copies were still available to students and they did not constitute the entire circulation. I would not be worried that Mary would move copies of the Weekly on any other weekend. I fail to see any harm here. Why not hash it out on the editorial pages of the Weekly? That would be a great place to allow the exchange of opinions on this issue. In my reading of this situation, the Weekly is being a pompous bully and trying to harm a young woman’s college standing over a trivial matter. As an alumni I find this disparaging.
Why is the Weekly focused on persecuting one person instead of trying to correct a problem that admittedly occurred the previous year (with no scapegoat)? I see a lot of labels being applied to Mary, but come on – it was a situation that developed, not a plan. She sought advice on what to do and took an action that seemed respectful and appropriate at the time. And kudos to her for standing up and taking responsibility in order to get some discussion going to FIX THE PROBLEM FOR THE FUTURE!
Maybe the Weekly wants to challenge the student body to come up with other ways to keep the publication from the admissions visitors’s view that fall within the rules – rest assured it could become as fun a ritual as case day itself!
I’ve had dozens of ideas just while looking through this, surely this campus full of intelligent people can come up with a real solution.
Why on earth would we want to intentionally misrepresent the college to prospective students? Scholarship students and their parents deserve to know exactly what they are applying for, and I would like to assume that they can intelligently assess the article in context (both in the context of Gustavus and of other schools). I realize that assumption may be setting the bar fairly high, but that’s another issue altogether.
If we lose some promising prospective students because of Case Day and binge drinking issues, maybe that’s the wake up call we need to actually address them. Our school culture is unsustainable if we need to hide some aspects of it from prospective students in order for them to apply.
Thank you to everyone who brought this issue to the schools’ attention. I don’t mean to pass judgment on what either party should or should not have done – I want to debate the issue on another level.
All interested should read the following Letter to the Editor for the facts about this case.
http://weekly.blog.gustavus.edu/2010/04/16/relocated-newspapers/
Also, I would like to commend The Weekly staff for their commitment to a well-written, unbiased reporting of the facts. While not everything is 100 percent accurate in this article, The Weekly has made changes to the original article, showing their commitment to the truth.