Just came across an interesting article concerning a small, rural LAC in the northeast & am curious as to whether such censorship of student newspapers is commonplace and whether during this time of labor shortage if unionization efforts are increasing on college campuses throughout the United States.
While it is not clear whether or not the article regarding unionization and censorship was a prank or an actual occurrence, the story raises interesting issues regarding censorship & unionization of workers on college campuses.
Is this story true or a prank ?
Another article claims that the first article was a prank, but the link does not work.(substack.com)
Are college campus workers unionizing during this labor shortage ?
Another article regarding unionizing college workers:
Nathan Bernard’s reporting on Bates College Unionization movement and subsequent censorship might involve some disturbing attempts at censorship & suppression. Isn’t likely that he fabricated any aspect of his story based on his credits.
The Bates Student acknowledges perceived limitations in reporting, although its understanding of these limitations appears to be reversed:
It seems that Bates journalists, as well as other media, would be free to contact Bates administrators. However, Bates administrators appear to have accepted that media requests will be honored only when presented through its media relations representative.
I don’t see anything very scandalous here. Some members of CC regularly display antipathy towards LACs, so I’m inclined to read the OP with a grain of salt.
These quotes seem to sum up where the controversy arises.
‘The new version of the story highlighted that the “college has chosen not to remain silent on the unionization efforts” and quoted an email from college President Clayton Spencer that read: “No one can make an informed choice if they hear only one side of a story. That is simply not how deliberative processes or democratic elections work, particularly at an educational institution.” Spencer’s comment was featured online as the article’s pull quote.’
She’s got a point.
Then this juicy nugget: ‘A comparison of the two articles shows over 1,000 words were added to the edited story when it was republished.’
From the article: “Mary Pols, Bates’ media relation specialist, asked The Student to temporarily take down the original article, pointing to several misleading statements and reporting inaccuracies.The Student made the decision on its own accord to honor this query.” That proves censorship? No, it doesn’t.
I dunno. There may not be anything to see here, folks. I mean, literally. It’s the nature of publishing in the digital age that articles appear and disappear overnight. When faced with a similar situation ten years ago, Wesleyan students at least had a print version they could burn in protest. Here, it’s not clear whether the original Bates story was ever actually “put to bed” as it were. All we have are competing versions of the same article. The paper’s staff claim they made changes independently and without pressure from the administration. People can take that with the appropriate grain of salt, but this sounds like another example of watching sausage as it is being made.
