At the risk of provoking strong reactions, I am curious what Wes students, parents and alumni think about the ongoing effort by the Wesleyan student government to intimidate the school newspaper into silencing unpopular views in its editorial pages.
For anyone not familiar with the issue, last fall the paper published an op-ed from a student that questioned whether the BLM movement was contributing toward violent rhetoric or actions against some law enforcement. There was certainly ample reason to disagree with the opinion expressed in the student editorial. But rather than limit the response to counter opinions in the paper, some students (and faculty apparently) petitioned the student government to partially defund the paper as well as other demands such as dedicating part of the paper to a section solely curated by those protesting the offending letter, rather than by the editorial staff. Note there is no suggestion that the editorial staff was refusing to publish counter or alternative POV’s.
There are of course multiple sides to this story. It can and was argued that the paper receives a disproportionate amount of student media funding (as do most school papers) so why not use the money for publications representing some of the specific minority communities within Wes instead? It was also argued there were merely forcing the paper to embrace the digital age by having less money for print editions to instead focus on online delivery. But even if that’s a valid idea to discuss, the timing is wrong. The actions of the student government very clearly were meant to punish the paper for having dared to publish the student’s opinion and to demonstrate solidarity with the opinions of those protesting the letter. And the persecution continues. After the story went national, the paper received donations from alumni and others that they used to create a reserve fund in the event of future censorship efforts (and I don’t use the word censorship lightly but in this case it is effectively the [student] government trying to suppress opinions, which fits the spirit of the word). The stu-co’s response has been to cut off funds again to force them to use up the donations so they once again have no money in reserve and will be at the mercy of the politically correct overlords.
Here’s the crux of my question – where are the adults in the room? How could reasonably enlightened, educated people not see that trying to suppress opinions they don’t like, rather than rationally counter them, is inconsistent with democracy and not a long term way to achieve social justice? If it’s okay for the students at Wesleyan, then how can they morally object to conservatives trying to censor textbooks in Texas, as but one example? Democracy thrives on an open dialogue, not trying to deny anyone you disagree with a voice. The real danger is they may not like the nation that results if those in power are tolerated in unilaterally determining which opinions can be heard. Responsible faculty and administrators should be telling these people to grow up and give them valuable context, not be afraid to say anything negative lest they violate their safe space.
My other question is, does this kind of closed-mindset represent the dominant culture at Wesleyan? Or is it a small but apparently influential minority? What has school/community life been like for the student who’s opinion sparked these protests and attempts at censorship? Or for the members of the paper’s staff? Do a majority of Wesleyan students appreciate the value of a free press, or are they myopically focused on ends-justifying-the-means tactics like those on the student government appear to embrace? It’s a sincere line of questioning relevant to prospective students and their families.
Remember that old movie “The Mouse that Roared?” I think that is what most Wes students think of the controversy over the Argus. Most just don’t care or pay attention to it. The WSA certainly seems like it is on a vendetta and many Alum have contributed to fund a ‘rainy day’ operating fund for the Argus. Ironically, this gesture of support from the Alumni is at the center of the current raucous given the WSA reclaiming ‘unused $’ from the Argus given this ‘rainy day fund’ The WSA argument is that there are other student groups without this kind of Alum support and therefore they can reclaim the residual amount. Net, net these types of funding spats are commonplace not just across student funded activities in many colleges but also most obviously in public finances.
As for the ideological issues and uproar over the BLM issue, we have seen this type of student protest many times and its part and parcel of being on a politically active social justice focused campus. Dissenting opinion is welcome and should be refuted with and debated with civil discourse rather than pulling the purse strings, this is why the Alums came to the Argus rescue. As for the current standoff, they will sort it out. Like Bismark said regarding politics and sausage, likewise for student run activities and student government.
Very early on in the controversy, the university president did, indeed, issue a warning to student leaders that they were treading pretty close to the edge and that free speech and the marketplace of ideas - including uncomfortable ones - needed to be safeguarded:
But, Wesleyan also has a very strong student culture that dates back to its days as an early adaptor of student-run literary societies, secret societies and intercollegiate sports. “The Argus”, itself is a product of that fertile period of growth just after the Civil War, when Wesleyan began to make the pivot from a denominational college to a more “metropolitan” world-view. Crucial to that vision was the idea of giving students as much responsibility to handle their own affairs as they can handle. Therefore, it’s not unusual that at moments like this almost anything may become a “teachable moment”.
I think the prevailing feeling on campus is that there’s been a real rush to judgment about what actually did happen, is happening and will happen in the future. Contrary to the impression left by numerous members of the Commentariat (including a Who’s Who of Wesleyan alum in the field of journalism), the student whose opinion sparked the controversy has never stopped writing for the paper. If you click on his byline you will find at least half a dozen articles written since last October, including one entitled, “The Case For Donald Trump”. No one really cares.
Secondly, as noted in your opening paragraph, money and student activities are always going to be contentious issues. It’s not just “The Argus”; It comes up every time a booking for Spring Fling breaks its budget (although, in general Spring Fling is another example of a well-run student undertaking) and the student government has reacted nimbly in the face of a rapidly evolving state of play.They were absolutely crucial in walking the BLM petitioners back from their original position and I think most students applauded their efforts to do so. They, IMO, have successfully managed to move the conversation away from whether “The Argus” should exist to how should it (and other literary endeavors) be funded. That, I believe, is something about which fair-minded men and women may disagree. Amicably, I hope.
It totally pissed me off. And I am a big, big fan of Wes. However, in fairness I must say when I looked into it more carefully, the issues were not nearly as clear cut as I initially thought and funding issues are far more divorced from the content bashing than I had initially thought (or than portrayed). And there were many animated discussions where many and I dare say most students totally got it right (“I hate what you have to say but I’ll fight for your right to say it” (to paraphrase slightly).) But disappointingly some didn’t get right at all … but I guess that is life. In the end I gave money to the Argus and then tired of the complicated mess.
If it happens everywhere it hasn’t gotten as much national attention elsewhere. At my university that the student government appointed board members to oversee student media but once they did that board had independent control over the media budget. Even if the government members had been outraged the most they could do was wait until appointments expired and influence the future make-up of that board. Which would usually mean they couldn’t knee-jerk react to the issue of the moment. I worked for the paper as an undergrad and chaired the media board as a grad student. There were plenty of controversial issues but I never experienced any attempt to defund the student media in retaliation.