BY JOHN K. WILSON
Donald Trump has infamously called the media who dare to tell the truth about him “the enemy of the people” and dreamed of repressive measures to silence the press. But so far he’s been too incompetent to actually fulfill his totalitarian wishes.
If you want to find a place where freedom of the press is increasingly restricted by official policies, you need look no further than American’s colleges. As colleges become increasingly worried about PR, they have concluded that the easiest way to stop negative media coverage is to ban the media.
Harvard’s media relations policy is one of the worst: “Reporting, photographing, and videotaping are prohibited on campus without prior permission.” It’s absolutely astonishing that universities with journalism departments ban all reporting on campus unless it’s approved in advance by the administration.
Private colleges have the legal power to silence the press, even if it violates the ethical foundations of what a free university must stand for. But public colleges also think they can target the media for suppression, in spite of their legal obligations.
One example is Nassau Community College (NCC) in New York, which has a truly awful News Media Relations Policy that violates the First Amendment (for both news media and employees), endangers academic freedom, and undermines the basic ethical obligations of openness at a college.
On Sept. 4, a NCC Board committee is scheduled to discuss this policy, and the proposed revisions would remove truly terrible provisions in the policy, including a requirement that employees “must” first contact the media relations office before contacting the media about a “College program, event or achievement,” and an enforcement section detailing that any violations of this ridiculous policy may be subject to disciplinary action.
But severe, repressive restrictions in the current policy would still remain under the revision:
“While on College property or upon entering College facilities, all news media representatives must be accompanied by a staff member designated by the Office of Governmental Affairs and Media Relations.”
This is a violation of the First Amendment because it places a special restriction in public spaces on the press that applies to no one else. It is also aimed at suppressing the free speech of staff and students by having an administrative spy overhear anything they might say to the media, much like similar “minders” are used in North Korea to control press access. This provision could also be used to ban the media from campus if a staffer is unavailable. It also endangers academic freedom because any professor who invites a journalist to speak in a class will be required to have the administration monitor that class.
Here’s another repressive provision:
“If a College event attracts news media interest, all press releases and statements to the news media must be routed through, approved and disseminated by the Office of Governmental Affairs and Media Relations.”
Prior restraint of speech by the government is a clear First Amendment violation. This rule allows the administration to not only control the content of certain communications with the media, but even to ban any “statements” to the press about an event. The College is free to encourage people to work with a particular office and offer its assistance, but not to ban contact with the media about events. The policy does not define what a “College event” is, and it could include even protests organized by staff against the administration, including an event criticizing the News Media Policy.
The NCC policy also bans discussion of certain topics:
“Under no circumstances should information pertaining to a case that is in litigation be discussed publicly without the prior approval of the Office of General Counsel.” Under this rule, if an employee is the victim of discrimination or sexual abuse, that employee can be fired for discussing this wrongdoing publicly with anybody. In fact, if anyone sued Nassau Community College over this unconstitutional media policy, any professor could be fired for saying anything to the media about how the media policy should be changed, presenting research about the media policy, or even organizing an event to discuss freedom of the press and the media policy, unless the administration gives advance permission for such freedom of speech.
Nassau Community College could easily solve these deeply flawed and unconstitutional policies by simply changing “must” to “should” in these three sections. If it wants to respect academic freedom, freedom of the press, and the First Amendment, it must do so.
It is unfortunate that those who ran to the press to chalange the newly passed BOT media relations policy rather than giving NCC’s Governance Council consisting the Chair of Chairs, the Chair of NCC’s Academic Senate, union leadership and the college president the opportunity to make this flawed policy right.The needed revisions were made and are being passed on to the Board for their consideration and approval. Stefan Krompier, President Adjunct Faculty Association st Nassau Community College myafaonline.org. The AFA: We Care About Our Students, Our Colleagues, Our College.
Instead of denouncing public discussion of a terrible policy, we should be encouraging more of it, and asking how such an awful policy ever was enacted. Perhaps one reason is that campus leaders attack those who “ran to the press” rather than blaming those who create bad policies. Are the needed revisions being made? The current proposal is completely inadequate, and how can we accept the notion that we should quietly trust the system that led to this repressive policy being enacted?
No, we should use the system and if it doesn’t work we should then protest. I AM ONE DULY ELECTED COLLEGE LEADER. I DO NOT SPEAK FOR OTHERS AS JOHN K.WILSON IMPLIED.
In a free society, the right to speak out publicly and contact the media is the system. Unfortunately, a lot of the leaders at Nassau Community College don’t seem to understand this basic idea. If an unconstitutional policy suppressing the First Amendment has been in place for a year, then this system isn’t working.
You infer that public discussion is the end all be all. Too many “public discussers” enter the conversation to further their own agenda, often with distortions, half truths and out right lies that are taken at face value as the truth of the matter. This does unrepairable damage to the targeted individual, group or institution. In my opinion NCC’s new media policy is flawed. The Governance Council fixed it and the fixes are on there way to to NCC’s BOT for their consideration. The group that brought the flaws to Newsday and probably to you label themselves as the loyal opposition. If they had brought there concerns to our Govrnance Counci first there loyalty would have been affirmed. By going directly to the media they unjustly impugned the reputation of the college to millions of people many of whom are about to choose a college that they or their children will attend in the not too distant future without giving the college the opportunity to fix the policy. If the college failed to make the needed changes to the media policy a faculty rebuke is order through a vote of NCC’s Academic Senate. A rebuke from our Academic Senate would be substantively newsworthy and appropriate for publication. The story that was brought to Newsday was certainly newsworthy they printed it but incomplete because it lacked information as to what was being done on campus to right the ship. It would have been and should of been a positive story that reflected well on NCC and it’s governance structure and channels that afford due process, one that rightly enhanced the college’s reputation not one that wrongly in tone and substance unfairly damaged it.
It’s disturbing that public discussion about a public college policy is regarded as somehow “disloyal.” If that’s the culture at NCC, it’s very alarming, and reveals how a terrible policy like this was approved. Academic freedom means that all faculty, not just the Academic Senate, have the freedom to criticize campus policies. As for the Newsday story (https://www.newsday.com/long-island/education/nassau-community-college-1.19478912), I don’t agree that a story of a terrible policy being enacted and then only marginally improved would be regarded as a “positive story” if only those disloyal people and their media lackeys would have kept quiet. NCC can enhance its reputation by fixing the problem: Get rid of this terrible media policy, and enact one that explicitly protects First Amendment rights, that welcomes media scrutiny on campus, and that commits NCC to the highest standards of transparency and liberty.
You absolutely miss the point, public discussions fraught with half truths etc are destructive not constructive.
I’d love to know what is false in what I wrote. All I did was write about a written policy and explain why I thought it was flawed and potentially dangerous to freedom of the press.
Very good post. A few observations. Trump isn’t seeking to silence the press. He merely calls out the bias inherent in the opinion and reporting functions of major media and its ideological allegiance to both partisan philosophy and special interest sponsorship–in both extremes of the political spectrum. Concerning speech and media restrictions on college campuses, that is a fascinating issue; fascinating because it displays the nature of the modern university. They are institutions identical to the modern corporation. Which means they are managing tort law and liability, not constitutional law and free speech. They are also carefully managing Title VI of the CRA, and the sensibilities of corporate donors. In Chicago’s case they are also protecting DOD contracts (Fermi and Argonne). See my opinion in the WSJ on campus free speech. Regards.
Just a couple of comments:
The first amendment protects against actions by the government that discriminate based on the content of speech. It doesn’t protect the press from being treated differently by a property owner, including on public property.
A governmental organization can require the press to visit only when accompanied by someone designated by the organization. If it were otherwise, anyone in the press — including bloggers and tweeters — could wander into classrooms, offices, etc at will.
Finally, unless I misunderstand your situation, you’re concerned about the right of employees and students to speak. While the first amendment protects the right to seek, it does not ensure the right to have a reporter nearby to listen
The First Amendment does protect the press from being treated differently by the government. Obviously, the press does not have the right to wander in classrooms and offices, because the public doesn’t. But if the public has the right to walk on a public college campus without minders (and obviously we do), then a public college cannot force the media to be spied on by administrators. Finally, I think the First Amendment does give professors the right to contact the media and send out press releases. Obviously, nobody has the right to have a reporter nearby, but the government does not have the right to ban reporters and to ban press releases.
My third paragraph needs clarification: The first amendment protects the press from censorship by the government It doesn’t give members of the press license to trespass. A public college can obviously designate where members of the public, including the press, can go on campus. That right to restrict entry includes the right to allow entry only when accompanied by a designated person. Staff and students have the right to contact the press, but not to insist on a private conversation anytime they see a member of the press.
Pingback: Stefan Krompier’s War with the First Amendment. (Or “Krompier’s best Trump Impersonation”) – Another NCC Blog
The policy was proposed in December of 2016. At the first possible Academic Senate meeting numerous faculty raised concerns about the proposed policy. At the next meeting we passed a resolution to revise the policy. That was nearly a year and a half ago.
Thank you to FRANK REISER for creating the Another NCC Blog
I am flattered that Andrea Campbell’s earlier post attributes authorship of the Another NCC Blog to me. I understand why she may have thought so. I did write a WordPress blog for several years about NCC politics but stopped when the Board of Trustees passed a policy restricting free speech by faculty members. I believe they were wrong in doing so but also accept their authority to do it. I removed my blog, Adjunctsaurus, from WordPress and have not started another. Another NCC Blog is not mine.
NCC’s Board members have been appointed by county executive Edward Mangano and NYS governor Mario Cuomo. Community colleges are the peoples’ colleges and the people speak through their elected officials. Unfortunately, the uncensored voice of their community college’s faculty can no longer complete the circle of communication about how the people’s $210,000,000 annual budget academic institution is being run.
Andrea Campbell’s name is familiar. I know she doesn’t work at the college but I believe I heard it during a public board meeting. Several board members were screaming a name like that very, very loudly. Maybe Andrea Campbell’s destiny is to be our college’s next president.
I am flattered that Andrea Campbell’s earlier post attributes authorship of the Another NCC Blog to me. I understand why she may have thought so. I did write a WordPress blog for several years about NCC politics but stopped when the Board of Trustees passed a policy restricting free speech by faculty members. I believe they were wrong in doing so but also accept their authority to do it. I removed my blog, Adjunctsaurus, from WordPress and have not started another. Another NCC Blog is not mine.
NCC’s Board members have been appointed by county executive Edward Mangano and NYS governor Mario Cuomo. Community colleges are the peoples’ colleges and the people speak through their elected officials. Unfortunately, the uncensored voice of their community college’s faculty can no longer complete the circle of communication about how the people’s $210,000,000 annual budget academic institution is being run.
Andrea Campbell’s name is familiar. I know she doesn’t work at the college but I believe I heard it during a public board meeting. Several board members were screaming a name like that very, very loudly. Maybe Andrea Campbell is destined to be our college’s next president.