The big C word

Nothing says real world experience and real world education like a big censorship scandal right at your own college, right?

Last week, the Columbus Dispatch ran a story about an admissions officer at Ohio Wesleyan University who decided he didn’t like an article the student newspaper ran celebrating a drinking tradition that happens on  campus. The campus would be hosting an open house for prospective students and the story did not put the campus in its best light, so the admissions officer threw away all of the papers in one of the campus’s buildings (likely a building these prospectives would be spending some time).

When student editors discovered this, they were outraged. The university, on the other hand, seemed less enraged about it and instead offered financial compensation for the discarded newspapers. The university spokesman quoted in the Dispatch article said that the employee made a mistake and that “This person thought that action might help to remove some information that may not present Ohio Wesleyan in the best light.”

There is no question that this is censorship — and for this to happen on a liberal arts campus is quite appaling. I applaud the student editors for their action on this one and using this as an opportunity to discuss the value of the free press, journalism, and the First Amendment rights that students even on a college campus have.

What’s perhaps most interesting about the censorship was that it was done in hopes of presenting the campus in its best light. Certainly, glorifying a tradition that involves drinking doesn’t help illuminate the golden opportunities of a college campus, but doesn’t it seem that by hiding that, the admissions officer is also deceiving potential students? By hiding student life, the admissions officer put on a lying face for prospective students who may truly be seeking a place that does not have a large drinking scene, for example, and by this deception, a future student may not only be unhappy about his/her choice in attending OWU, but also is now out tens of thousands of dollars, hundreds of hours, and may be all together disillusioned with higher education. If an admissions representative can’t be truthful or won’t let a student discover what the campus has to offer for him/her self through a medium such as the newspaper, then why should someone trust that person in making appropriate admissions decisions or counseling?

All of this is to say that one of the most important roles a student newspaper does on a campus is give a picture of what is important to the student body and campus culture as a whole. While a front page story may be about a drinking tradition, there certainly will be articles that refute the tradition, articles that celebrate major academic achievements of enrollees, and other valuable and informative pieces that a prospective student should use in making a decision in college attendance. By censoring the newspaper, the admissions officer has done a major disservice to prospectives by not allowing them access — free, easy, quick, and transportable — information about the campus life.

As a prospective student, however, I would be incredibly impressed with the response by the editorial board; that in and of itself speaks volumes about the campus and its culture. It would have been much easier to ignore the censorship or to have never investigated it, and it would have been easy to let it slide without making a case for it. But these students stood up and used this opportunity to educate their peers about their First Amendment right to the press and free speech.

Too often, new graduates are told they do not have the experience needed for a job, and often, their experiences while in school somehow do not count as “real experience” or it’s not valued in a manner that experience in the 9-5 workplace is. But something like this highlights yet again what dedicated, smart, and driven individuals are doing before they need to put on their professional pants and enter a work place. Issues like censorship and ethics creep into our lives quite easily, but it takes someone with courage and with intelligence to approach and shine light on the subject.

It’s also stories like this that make me wonder about how we will combat these First Amendment issues if the press moves to a digital model, rather than a print model. But for now, it’s time to applaud the hard work of The Transit staff who are likely underpaid, underadvised, and putting their hearts into the newspaper because it’s something they simply love to do — and something from which they are learning incredible life lessons.

If you get a chance, check out some of the great editorials and opinions that ran in support of The Transit. I find it more faith to the fact that newspapers still serve a very important role in a community.