BY JOHN K. WILSON
If anyone thinks freedom of the press is safe on college campuses, two stories this week from FIRE suggest otherwise. At the University of North Texas, a right-wing nonprofit group called Empower Texas filed a Freedom of Information Act request, demanding that the university force its student newspaper to turn over documents about a supposedly “biased” story it published. Even more alarming is the case of censorship imposed by universities. Colleges that ban staff from speaking to the press are a growing threat to free expression, a danger made even worse when student workers are the ones being censored. At Louisiana State University, the student paper reported that “RAs are specifically forbidden from speaking to the media, including the on-campus newspaper, The Reveille.” At the University of Missouri, the student newspaper had to quote RAs anonymously because of a “strict media policy for Residential Life employees.” How many other colleges, especially private ones, are silencing their student employees?
At a moment when safety during the Covid-19 crisis is a crucial question all faculty, students, and staff are facing, colleges are trying to censor the news. This also happened when Liberty University issued arrest warrants for journalists in April 2020 in retaliation for critical reporting about its campus, and then sued the New York Times in July for defamation, it showed in stark terms how freedom of press is under attack at some universities.
Ironically, Liberty University has an unusually liberal policy toward the news media, with no special restrictions on reporters and an open invitation on its website for visitors to come on campus. While Liberty had no reasonable basis for arresting journalists from ProPublica and the New York Times, many other universities have policies that ban all reporters.
In a study I conducted as a fellow with the University of California National Center on Free Speech and Civic Engagement, I found that some of the leading elite universities in America have extraordinary restrictions on freedom of the press, banning all journalists from campus unless they get permission from the administration. Harvard’s media policy declares, “Reporting, photographing, and videotaping are prohibited on campus without prior permission.” Why is Harvard’s media policy so problematic? The demand to grant permission always implies the right to deny it. It creates unnecessary barriers for the media, and the faculty, staff, and students who wish to talk with them. Imagine if Harvard announced a policy requiring permission to protest on campus; even if Harvard officials promised not to ban protests, the chilling effect of having to request permission for free expression is alarming.
Harvard is not alone in having a very restrictive campus media policy. Among the Top 25 American universities, Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Emory, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale all require permission from a news office before journalists are allowed on campus. Some of the restrictions are rather extreme. Stanford’s policy, for example, bans members of the media not only from campus but also from “the surrounding faculty neighborhoods without prior permission from University Communications.”
Harvard might point out that its policy is no different from other private corporations, and even the New York Times doesn’t allow competing reporters to wander around its offices. But a college campus covering a large outdoor space isn’t like an office building. And universities should not be run like corporations. A corporation would typically prohibit free speech on its property. A university must not engage in such repression if it wants to be a true university.
While the New York Times does not permit the general public to wander its halls, virtually all college campuses welcome visitors to walk on campus, gaze at the stately buildings, take photographs, and learn more about the university. Only one type of person must receive permission before stepping foot on some campuses: the reporter.
Private colleges have no legal obligation to allow freedom of the press on campus, just as they have no legal obligation to protect academic freedom or defend free speech on campus. But all colleges have a moral obligation to protect free expression, including the freedom of the press.
What’s so shocking about these total bans on the media is that they’re completely unnecessary. Colleges desire publicity, and restrictions on the press only discourage media attention. Many elite private universities (including CalTech, Carnegie Mellon, the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins, Penn, Rice, USC, and Washington University) have no formal policy banning the media on campus, and there’s no sign of any problems. It’s easy to set reasonable expectations to protect the privacy of dorm rooms, offices, and classrooms from uninvited reporters without giving the administration the power to decide if journalists are allowed on campus.
Restrictive media rules have been growing on many campuses, while faculty and students resist them. In 2019, student journalists at Loyola University of Chicago persuaded the administration to overturn a restrictive policy. In February 2019, the Loyola Phoenix published a remarkable editorial about the repressive media policy on campus.
Loyola’s communications spokesperson, Evangeline Politis, had written to the student newspaper, angry that student journalists had dared to ask questions directly to faculty and staff at Loyola: “This is disrespectful and unacceptable. As I indicated in my email this morning (attached), I am the first point of contact for the Phoenix for University-related requests. I can get in touch with administration and faculty to answer your questions.”
Politis was simply following Loyola’s official policy at the time, which declared that every single question from the news media (including the student newspaper) must be channeled through the University Media Communications (UMC) office, who will then decide if faculty or staff are allowed to answer. The students at Loyola reminisced about the good old days, two years earlier, when they were free to ask questions like journalists are supposed to do.
Loyola’s media relations policy gave total control over media to the PR office: “UMC is responsible for initiating and/or responding to news media requests and managing those interactions.” That threatens the academic freedom of faculty, staff, and students to contact the media, and to respond to questions from the press.
Loyola’s restrictive media policy also affected the rights of students and faculty to promote their own events: “If an event attracts news media interest, press releases and statements to the news media will be routed through, approved, and disseminated by the appropriate UMC team member.” What if the administration decides it doesn’t want to publicize an event that criticizes its policies? Under this rule, it was a violation of university policy if anyone outside the PR office told a journalist about an event happening on campus.
Loyola’s media policy also included a requirement for minders to follow news media: “While on Loyola University Chicago property or upon entering residence halls and other University facilities, news media representatives must be accompanied by a UMC staff member or a University employee designated by UMC.” The use of “escorts” is common in many campus media policies.
As the Loyola Phoenix noted, “Loyola is more than a brand. It’s a university.” Universities have an obligation to transparency and openness as a part of being free institutions. Brand management is always going to be a part of the modern university. But when branding is enforced by restrictive policies, it indicates that free expression isn’t part of that university’s identity anymore.
In response to the criticism from the student newspaper, Loyola dramatically changed its media policy in 2019. The new policy states that faculty and staff are “encouraged” to contact the media office, but they are no longer required to do so. Escorts are no longer required in all cases. And the press no longer must receive permission to visit campus: “Members of the news media are welcome to visit our lakeside campuses. However, in order to ensure the privacy of our students, faculty, staff, and guests, we request that all external news media contact a member of the communication team prior to visiting.”
Restrictive campus media policies are not the only threat to freedom of the press on campus, but they are a growing phenomenon, and one that is easily solved by adopting better policies that recognize how important openness and freedom of the press is to higher education.
Ironically, these restrictive media policies are growing at precisely the moment when they have the least utility. Cellphones and social media make it possible for anyone to become the media, and to post news, photos, and video that’s readily available to the public and easy for the media to use. Keeping out the media doesn’t work because a student with a phone can record video of a controversy.
At the same time, massive budget cuts threaten the viability of news media. According to a 2020 Pew Research Center study, US newspapers shed 51% of their newsroom employees between 2008 and 2019. The Covid-19 budget crisis has only accelerated this decline. It was rare in the past for news media to cover colleges, but now higher education reporters are even harder to find.
While the professional media covering higher education have largely disappeared, the staff of campus media relations offices has increased substantially in recent decades, as with other administrative positions. Media policies that sharply limit media access reflect the fact that media relations offices have the staff to monitor the press and to produce positive news that can be fed to media outlets directly.
At a time when Donald Trump denounces reporters as “fake news” (and is joined by other authoritarian-minded leaders around the world), universities ought to be standing for the principle of a free press. When colleges require permission for reporting on campus, they violate the rights of their students and employees and send a chilling message against freedom of expression.
There may be some friction between freedom of the press, and privacy rights of students and others on campus. Sometimes I think UChicago’s Allan Bloom (and Saul Bellow) who wrote the fabulous “Closing of the American Mind” was right: universities should just keep politics out of campus; indeed, they should be quiet and undisturbed so you really concentrate on building your skills, and then get out. Right now, I think the ‘University of Antarctica’ sounds pretty appealing. Saul Bellow, who writes the Introduction to Bloom’s amazing book, is worth quoting here if you may indulge it: “The heart of Professor Bloom’s argument is that the university, in a society ruled by public opinion, was to have been an island of intellectual freedom where all views were investigated without restriction. Liberal democracy in its generosity made this possible, but by consenting to play an active or “positive,” a participatory role in society, the university has become inundated and saturated with the backflow of society’s “problems.” Preoccupied with questions of Health, Sex, Race, War, academics make their reputations and their fortunes and the university has become society’s conceptual warehouse of often harmful influences. Any proposed reforms of liberal education which might bring the university into conflict with the whole of the U.S.A. are unthinkable.”
Otherwise, it is the “Right” media that covers higher education quite extensively. The Ingraham Angle just did a fantastic journalism report of university and college “health” policy which was quite unsettling (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gDKq-KW0mU). Ingraham is a Dartmouth undergrad and Virginia Law grad and is quite interested in higher education and covers it extensively; Tucker Carlson is a Trinity College grad, and often has college students on his program. The reporter of the Fox campus health policy program, Ray Arroyo, is a NYU grad and did a great job, this past Friday. Indeed, Trump, a Wharton grad, has shown unusual regard for campus free speech by extending EO authority to enforce it (which the Left tried to suppress). Imagine: free speech so suppressed by Left faculty and students, that conservative students had to appeal for presidential intervention.
Two other brief points if I may: in my experience, the best, perhaps most important “freedom of the press” that exists on campus, is reserved for campus student newspapers, like UChicago’s Maroon, Harvard’s Crimson, or the UT Austin Daily Texan, among hundreds more. If done well, they can be as influential as any major media, often better. The other issue is university corporate media policy, which as you note, is often media shy. When I was on a public television program discussing campus free speech, and the “Chicago Principles,” with FIRE’s Ari Cohen, the University of Chicago refused to attend, defend their policy, and debate the issue in public with us. Why? The Principles are a clever speech suppression tool.
Otherwise, this blog essay was coasting along just fine, until the apparent motivation finally emerged: “At a time when Donald Trump denounces reporters as “fake news” (and is joined by other authoritarian-minded leaders around the world), universities ought to be standing for the principle of a free press.” Translation? “There is an election in less than 90 days, the AAUP backs the DNC, and wants the Left press to intervene and make sure Trump is tarred, and the DNC candidates, carefully positioned and spun.” Regards, ’96, UChicago
The AAUP doesn’t back any candidates. Personally I do, but this essay doesn’t do that, it simply states the obvious fact that Trump denounces reporters. That’s a good example of why colleges should not keep politics off campus (and why the AAUP should not keep politics off this blog), because to do so requires massive censorship.
As for privacy rights, we are talking about special restrictions on the media in the open public spaces on campus where everyone else is welcomed. I have often heard privacy used as an excuse, even heard claims the FERPA requires a total ban on the media unless they have permission. This is ridiculous (FERPA applies only to the university itself releasing certain student records). Some colleges ban photos or video of wide shots on campus without permission from all students visible; this effectively prohibits media coverage of protests. Many media rules clearly violate student privacy rather than protecting it: Some colleges require media to have “escorts” everywhere they go on campus in order to monitor who they talk to and what is said.
Perhaps “back” is the wrong word. Certainly “promote” is very obvious. While a different organization, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and Academe Today, are utterly Left in opinion and reporting, even going so far today as portraying Trump with a picture of Hitler. Really, just out of control.
I appreciate and largely agree with your view on media suppression on campus, in an absolute sense, but that control seems driven more by corporate concerns over ‘brand management,’ corporate liability, reputation protection, intellectual property even, and certain “proprietary” activities (Dept. of Defense, CIA, and many foreign-sponsored projects and visiting heads of state). Some research is classified; and much is public corporation sponsored (e.g. Big Pharma).
But university administration is concerned, above all else, on managing the one thing that will drive donors and parents away: controversy. Controversy kills university funding. And no one is better at promoting controversy than media. Harvard is probably the corporate poster-child in this regard, but still manages to embroil itself (e.g. Epstein). Universities like Stanford and its Hoover Institute, or Chicago’s Pearson Institute, or Harvard’s Kennedy Center and dozens more, might as well be arms of the US State Department (and some even promote that).
As for Trump and free speech, his concern is with the obvious, overwhelming media bias of the Left that just can’t seem to maintain professional standards of objective journalism. Trump is utterly correct about this bias, even corruption, and is in fact fighting for actual free press. His dedication to open discourse with the press is nearly unprecedented.
In the meantime: could this blog find just one conservative academic guest writer to write a conservative viewpoint? One wonders. It would be an interesting, if controversial, data point.
With Regards, ’96, UChicago