In our first issue this year the Free Press wrote a story about the new logo, which included negative comments from an employee of the president’s office. Exercising her first amendments rights, this person, also a student, commented on her disapproval of the new logo. Her comments were printed in the Free Press. Because of these comments she was called into the president’s office and told she ought to be more supportive.
Why should she have to appear to support something that she doesn’t?
Many people within the university don’t want journalists to write anything that might seem to be criticizing the university. As a journalist it is my job to write about not only the wonderful things the university is doing and planning but also the not so wonderful things. This is inclusive in the attempt to attain balanced reporting. We are not USM cheerleaders. We do not shake our pom-poms and jump up and down over every point the University scores. That is not our function. And I don’t believe that because you work in the president’s office you should be expected to support every decision that make.
As arts editor I was sheltered from serious road blocks. People weren’t trying to keep information from me. I never encountered much that could be labeled controversial. In fact I never encountered anything that was remotely controversial. The majority of the time I was busy trying to get off the phone with people and write my story. Or maybe there were shady deals transpiring just beyond the velvet curtain and I was completely oblivious.
In any event I wasn’t knee deep in hard news or scandal by any stretch-but that’s where I wanted to be. I wanted to be digging in the dirt uncovering the treasure-the truth. It seems in most cases, at least when the truth is unfavorable for an institution’s image nobody wants to stick their shovel in and lend a helping hand. Indeed most of the time people are throwing more dirt in and trying to further conceal the truth.
As students and people we are all searching for truth, truth about world events, truth about what our government is doing, truth about our immediate environments and truth about ourselves. The tricky thing about truth is that not everybody’s truths are aligned.
One person’s truth is called opinion by another. As a student within a University I expect to be able to exercise my first amendment rights in expressing my personal truths. I would hope that the one place where free speech and truth would still be sacred would be within a university. Maybe that’s idealistic.
The University is often referred to as a supportive environment where anybody can come to speak openly about their “truths,” a place where debate is fostered because these “truths” are often disparate. I find it disheartening that a student is going to be reprimanded for voicing a personal truth that collides with the University agenda, especially when it’s over something as insignificant as a few color changes.
Christy McKinnon can be contacted at [email protected]