2000-2002 Missouri Miner EIC weighs in on the Student Free Press at UMR

As submitted to the Harvard Crimson in response to their article, "Paper Plans To Sue Over Cuts" in their February 20th edition of The Harvard Crimson: Online Edition.


It is with surreal fascination that I watch the Missouri Miner student newspaper at the University of Missouri-Rolla inch ever closer to a landmark legal battle for the first amendment rights of the Student Free Press. In these past few years since leaving my two-year term as the Missouri Miner's Editor-in-Chief, I have kept fairly close tabs on the paper I poured my heart and soul into for four years. I have also tried to keep abreast of happenings in Student Press Law circles, watching different university newspapers overcome hostile administrations and student governments who try to silence the persistent nuisance which is the collegiate press, students who have the gall to expose the truth at times when the truth is especially inconvenient.

The latest budget cut by the UMR Student Council came as no surprise. I spoke at length at Student Council open forums during my tenure as Editor-in-Chief from 2000-2002, one time defending the student-run radio station from an attempt initiated by the Student Council President to format the radio station to their liking. Yes, the Student Council President thought he should be able to dictate what the DJs played on the air merely because the station received student activity fee money. I also on more than one occasion defended the Missouri Miner against proposed budget cuts, and at the time this defense was relatively easy and the opposition proposing these cuts notably weak. While campus media organizations firmly held their ground and the respect of the majority of the student body, there was a vocal minority in Student Council that were jealous of the influence the media wields, especially on a small public university campus. The Student Council's repeated attempts to railroad the campus media organizations have always had this in common--media organizations by nature wield power and influence, and the Student Council does not have the control over the media that they enjoy over the extracurricular clubs on campus. Jealousy and envy, combined with an unhealthy disdain for anything not specifically math and science related, have made the campus newspaper a repeated target of the UMR Student Council.

Speaking of power and arrogance, enter stage left an administration that disdains the Student Free Press. I can feel some sympathy for administration officials; you are the primary target of a newspaper whose perceived job is to wait for you to screw up and let everyone know. Dr. Gary Thomas didn't make us wait very long. Dr. Thomas began the current movement to try to make our modest but exceptional public institution into "one of the best engineering schools in the country." As a non-engineer, it looks to me like hubris for the administration to think that destroying the University's non-engineering programs will make our school more competitive with big-named schools such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology or the California Institute of Technology. Our engineering programs are unquestionably excellent; however, I fail to see Dr. Carney's logic in placing all of our eggs in a steadily shrinking basket. And while those pursuing engineering degrees from this institution only stand to lose a multi-dimensional education that will better prepare them for the broader world, those of us who received non-engineering diplomas should be justifiably livid at having our hard-earned degrees further marginalized after our departure. But instead of fixing what's broken on the inside of our beloved alma mater, the past two Chancellors have concentrated on, pardon my crude euphemism, polishing the turd. In their tunnel-vision quest to achieve their grandiose visions, a student-run newspaper has been an especially trying pain in the posterior.

The University has for several years managed to keep a leash on the campus newspaper. The Chancellor delegated his token position as Chairman of the Student Publications Media Board to the Vice-Chancellor of Student Affairs, a pretentious man who wielded intimidation like a club to beat into submission anyone he perceived as a threat to his ego. An added bonus was the Vice-Chancellor's antipathy for "freedom of speech;" I still hear the chilling sarcasm as the words hissed through his teeth. The Vice-Chancellor congratulated me on being elected to the Editor-in-Chief position by jokingly (or not) threatening to shut off our water and power should we print anything bad about him in the paper. Add to this equation the Assistant Vice-Chancellor, a sycophant who tried to dissolve the Student Publications Media Board to avenge coverage of the incoming Associate Vice-Chancellor, who just happened to be up to her neck in a civil lawsuit and related ethics investigation regarding her work as a psychologist and counselor. This was the University administration in 2001, and it's makeup hasn't improved much since.

It should be no surprise that the shady Associate Vice-Chancellor of Student Affairs from 2001, who is now entangled in a second personal civil lawsuit, is also the current Vice-Chancellor of Student Affairs who is front and center in the administration's endorsed cut of Student Fee monies and in attempting to blackmail the Missouri Miner staff by offering to return a portion of the illegally revoked funds if the Miner staff would agree to make certain content changes in the paper. Somehow the Missouri Miner in five years has fallen from having a tenured faculty advisor who would consistently go to the mat for the student press, to having an appreciated but non-tenured faculty member as one of three advisors imposed on the paper, the other two being a "journalism advisor," filled until recently by the head of the University's Public Relations office (who immediately resigned when the Missouri Miner was forced to threaten the University with a lawsuit), and a currently vacant administration advisor, whose purpose I can only shudder to imagine. With all of these events and changes in the last five years, I can only scratch my head at the University's statement that they support the constitutional rights of the Missouri Miner.

Not only are the first amendment rights of the Student Free Press in danger at the University of Missouri-Rolla, but they are disrespected and despised by a self-important university administration and Student Council. This is the third time in five years (of which I am aware) where the Missouri Miner has been forced to mull the possibility of suing the University of Missouri-Rolla. Once again the collegiate press is forced to rely on the courts to protect its freedoms when our government officials expect power and arrogance to rule the day. It's no wonder that even the Harvard Crimson is waiting to see what happens next.

Press Release: Legal Action Pursued Against the University of Missouri-Rolla by Campus Newspaper for a Content-Based Funding Cut

This is the actual press release sent out by the Missouri Miner staff. I have reproduced it here verbatim with their permission. -Randal

ROLLA, MO. --- *The Missouri Miner*, the student newspaper of the University of Missouri – Rolla (UMR), is pursuing legal action against UMR for first amendment violations due to censorship and cutting one-third of the newspaper's annual budget.

On November 7, 2006 UMR's Student Council voted to cut funding to *The Missouri Miner*, citing grammatical errors, opinionated content, and asking that the paper does not print as many copies.

"This cut has the potential to be extremely crippling," says Christopher Stryker, the Editor-In-Chief of *The Missouri Miner*. "What's more concerning is that they made it clear the cut was to encourage us to alter our content to fit their standards for what Student Council and the administration thought a student newspaper should be producing."

The Missouri Miner was given less than 24-hours to prepare before the Student Council meeting in which Student Activity Funding was decided. Michele Martin, then Editor-In-Chief, and Wendy Moore, Business Director, were each only allowed the opportunity to speak for four minutes opposition to the cut.

The vote was not in the newspaper's favor.

After Student Council voted on the funding cut, it was later approved by UMR administration including Vice Chancellor Debra Robinson and Chancellor John F. Carney III.

"We knew all along that this was a threat to our freedom of speech," says Michele Martin current Advertising Director of *The Missouri Miner*. "Though we have been laughed at, we have been attempting to deal with this internally in order to reach an amicable solution with the administration."

Since the approval of the cut, Christopher Stryker has taken over as Editor-In-Chief.

"We have been trying to work with the administration to resolve things but it has begun to feel like we were negotiating with a gun to our head," says Stryker. "It doesn't seem like we were going to resolve anything with the processes we have been going through. While we have tried to avoid it, legal action is the only recourse we see left."

An ultimatum has been sent to the University of Missouri President Elson Floyd, the Board of Curators, Chancellor Carney, Student Council and other involved parties asking for full restitution of funds and a signed agreement stating that all future funding of recognized media organizations will be carried out constitutionally. This letter requires the issue to be resolved by 5 p.m. on Monday, February 19, 2007, or legal action will be further pursued.

"It is our hope that the university resolves this issue before next Monday," says Stryker. "It is the right thing to do."

*The Missouri Miner* exists in the 8th district where cases such as Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth, et al., 529 U.S. 217 (2000), Rosenberger v. Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995), and Stanley v. Magrath, 719 F.2d 279 (8th Cir. 1984) have laid the way for their action.