To the Editor:
Unfortunately, it has not taken long for the new Senior Vice President’s office to cover itself with shame. The administration’s threat to cancel funding for The Mirror is so many times more disgraceful than the original column that prompted the threat.
Must we all be reminded of the position, that I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. This threat by the administration is nothing more then a cheap attempt to take the independence away from The Mirror and to create a paper that would have the same journalistic integrity as Pravda.
There is just so much [that is] problematic about the administration’s threat. Firstly, no fair reading of any codes or regulations the university has could be read to conclude that the column or anything else that has appeared in The Mirror rises to the level a justified judicial complaint. The argument that some people were offended, insulted or even outraged by the column should have no dispositive meaning. Remember what Justice Brandeis argued in his dissenting opinion in Gitlow v New York, “Every idea is an incitement”. Words are intended to have meaning and to cause people to react, which includes being deeply offended.
Another reason that this threat has no rational basis is that it attempts to apply a code of behavior intended to apply to students at the university to an entity, The Mirror itself, which is independent. This is not the first time the university has acted to suppress legitimate speech and tried to justify its actions with shallow and disingenuous reasons. Several years ago the president cancelled a speaker who was to speak on same sex marriage. Then, as now, the reasons given just defy credibility.
This column and any very controversial statement in The Mirror provide the campus with wonderful teaching opportunities to debate the column, to protest the column, to point out the potential harm of such sexist writings, all of which are positive outcomes.
To attempt to use the heavy hand of the administration to effectively censor and silence controversial speech is by using in this case its power of the purse is the worst possible message we can send to our students.
The Mirror is a student newspaper. Students are here to learn. We learn by making mistakes, mistakes should not be punished by, in effect, banishment.
I hope every member of our community that respects free speech, intellectual inquiry and risk taking will join me in saying no to this despicable act our administration is threatening.
Sincerely,
Donald Greenberg
Associate Professor and Chair Politics Department
(8 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading ...
Loading ...
Donald Greenberg,
I will defend to the death my right as a student to feel safe when I walk around this campus.
Does getting rid of the one newspaper on campus really make you feel safe walking around campus?
I’m quite positive that there will still be individuals on campus who will say the same things that the author of the column said despite the existence of the newspaper on the whole.
Student #1, you deserve to feel safe on campus. I agree, defend on.
Student #2, it’s not about getting rid of the newspaper, it’s about THE SCHOOL PAYING FOR SAID NEWSPAPER. Although students will feel uncomfortable or unsafe at some points while on a campus, it is the school’s responsibility to address and dispose of such sources.
The school funds the Mirror. Plain and simple. The school should pull funding if the Mirror makes people feel unsafe. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO FREE SPEECH IF EVERYONE ELSE IS PAYING FOR IT. GO PUBLISH YOUR OWN NEWSPAPER WITH YOUR OWN MONEY AND THEN COME BACK AND TALK.
Glad to see ol’ Greenberg is still around!
Came through by way of Gawker. You may want to check the grammar on your first sentence. This paper is pretty pathetic, even for college. (Hint: it’s than)
College? Nope, try again. This is a PROFESSOR! Pathetic indeed.
Two points this idiot editorial gets laughably wrong:
1. There is no free speech issue if the university is not a government entity. Try reading the First Amendment sometime.
2. Calling the paper “independent,” but at the same time sucking the tit of university funds. You want to be independent? Generate your own revenue to support publication.
Morons.
Actually mossdale you’re wrong. A) doesn’t matter if the University isn’t a government entity, your rights never go away. As a citizen of the United States you are guaranteed the Freedom of Speech in any forum unless you are calling for the overthrow of the United States Government. So yeah you’re wrong. B) If you were really informed, the Dean’s office purchaes a subscription for every student, that is how the mirror receives funding, unlike FUSA who receives the student activity fund. In that way they are independent just as you may subscribe to the New York Times but you cannot challenge its content.
Maybe if you ever took Media and Politics with Dr. Greenberg you would understand what freedom of speech means.
Mossdale, not sure if I can agree on point #1, but point #2 is right on, you got it.
This other guy who responded to your post is trying to bend words. The only reason the school buys every student a subscription is because NO STUDENT WOULD EVER PAY FOR SUCH INSULTING GARBAGE, especially not on a weekly basis.
This is not an editorial written by The Mirror, it is a letter to the editor from a politics professor. A well respected one at that who is the head of the department. I think he knows what he is talking about.
Eric L,
This is an embarrassing opinion to have. You essentially said, “The guy who said this is a really important teacher with a degree, so he must be smart and must know what he’s talking about!”
Yes, I would hope that the head of Politics at Fairfield University is a smart dude. People, however, make mistakes. And Greenberg is mistaken here in his argument. It’s awesome that he’s a well respected professor. That doesn’t mean that he knows what he’s talking about in this case.
Eric–my bad. on reading it, I assumed it was written by an undergrad. this, however, only makes it worse. this guy teaches here? good lord, I hope the tuition is suitably low.
and fyi, if the “prof” knows what he is talking about, he wouldn’t cite (1) a dissenting opinion in (2) a case that has no relevance. but to comprehend that, you’d have to familiarize yourself with the first amendement.
Mossdale could not be more right here.
Frankly, I am stunned that the Mirror is whining about losing funding over this. Chris’ screw up is now visible on a major sports blog (Deadspin) for all of the world to see, and it is painting an absolutely horrid picture of Fairfield for the rest of the world to see. If I was the head of Fairfield, that post would be taken now IMMEDIATELY (damage control) and I would definitely cut the Mirror’s funding. And for fun, I’d probably make Chris retake that Woman’s class that he took. I know his article was satire, but after reading Chris’ apology I really don’t think that he gets it (It in this case being feminism, equality, etc.).
Granted, Justice Hughes, in his majority opinion deciding Near v. Minnesota said, “the primary requirements of decency may be enforced against obscene publications,” yet obscenity has not been published in anyway by The Mirror. The speech found in The Mirror has not produced a “clear and present danger” and has definitely not produced notions of “imminent lawless action.” “Imminent lawless action” is the test used by the United States Supreme Court to define the limits of constitutionally protected speech. The statements made by the Fairfield University administration are in direct contrast with the historical conception of the liberty of the press, and, any action that interferences with the operation of The Mirror violates the essential characteristics of that liberty. Our country has been founded on the basis of freedom. Thousands have died to uphold our rights and I fully agree with Dr. Greenburg’s understanding and the importance of preserving our rights as a whole!
You really want to cite Brandeis here?
Is free speech in danger or are some people just reasonably objecting to their tuition paying for shoddy writers to refer to fellow students (the female ones, who have sex) as “victims” and “sluts”.
Here’s a fuller quote (the Gitlow v. People opinion is worth reading in full if yer interested):
“Every idea is an incitement. It offers itself for belief and if believed it is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it or some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth. The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker’s enthusiasm for the result. Eloquence may set fire to reason.”
Sorry, but in no way is the Mirror “independent” if it’s taking university funds. By claiming that, you’re doing a real disservice to college papers who truly are independent, i.e. run by advertising revenues ONLY. So in that sense, yeah, you’ve already got the same journalistic integrity as Pravda, and yeah, unfortunately the university can push you around.
You’re doing a further disservice by excusing it by saying it’s a student newspaper, and therefore should be given softer treatment. How is that ‘real’ journalism? We should all be held to the same standards. I worked at Virginia Tech’s Collegiate Times, a newspaper that was sued and had its case taken to state supreme court. No one handled us with kids’ gloves because we were students, and I’m happy for that.
Rock on Virginia Tech.
Fairfield kids are spoiled (I’m an alumn, I know). Yes, we have our parents pay crap loads of money to a school of back-doors funds to our little activities so we can act like we pay for everything ourselves. The truth is that just because we do cool fun stuff in said activities does not mean we really do much to fund-raise for them. Yeah, you’ve got your fair share of bake sales, but let’s not kid ourselves. Fairfield is RICH, Fairfield administration PAYS for student activities, and I will DEFEND TO THE DEATH [blah blah blah] Fairfield University’s right to cease funding of student activities that deface the school and paint a horrible picture for the student body.
undergrad: fail. try reading the first amendment, slowly. “liberty of the press” (as you call it) under the first amendment only applies to government action. this is why the cases you cite have absolutely no relevance. if you tried to make these arguments in court, you’d be laughed out the building. if the university wants to shut off the funds, it is their business, subject only to contractual obligations.
Thank you to the people that actually understand the meaning of “free speech” under the First Amendment. It is amazing how many people cry out for “free speech,” yet have no idea what it truly means. A private institution has every right to restrict speech; it is only when the government gets involved that speech becomes subject to the First Amendment. Now, I don’t know the complete financial backing of this school, but the majority of private colleges and universities do not receive the public funding necessary to categorize them as public/government bodies. Therefore, the First Amendment DOES NOT APPLY! Read that last sentence again.
It is honestly a bit shocking and quite telling that this “head of the department” professor can be so ignorant when it comes to something as basic as this issue. Perhaps the best part of this ‘Letter to the Editor’ was when the professor cites a dissenting opinion and uses the cancellation of a same-sex speaker as evidence he is correct. First, dissenting opinions are just that: dissention from the majority (prevailing) ruling. Second, the cancellation of the speaker is (again) the right of a private institution that chooses what speech it will allow on its grounds.
I will leave with this one final thought: If I were to write this same article at my office (perhaps about secretaries instead of coeds) and circulate it to my coworkers, will I be able to protect my job by citing free speech? I really hope no one answers “yes.”
Although Fairfield is a private institution and first amendment rights do not apply legally the spirit of free expression should still be something respected by administration.
The Mirror’s “subscription Fee” revenue is just part of their total revenue. It’s advertiser funded as a whole, but could not operate in it’s current form without the subscription fee. This is similar to the reasoning that the New York Times makes most of it’s money from advertising, but still could not operate in it’s current form without the money that subscriber’s and newstand readers pay for the paper each day.
In terms of independence The Mirror has historically been able to accomplish this through the funding agreement they’ve had for the last 25 years. Most student groups on campus receive their funding through FUSA, the student government. The Mirror’s budget is handled independently by the staff with a twice a year check cut from the Fairfield Administration. It has never had issues with interference from the administration until this year.
Everyone here must realize two things. If the student newspaper is truly independent, it would get its funding elsewhere. The university in this case functions in a manner similar to advertisers in the real world. If an advertiser doesn’t like the content of a real world newspaper, it pulls its support by not advertising/funding the newspaper. This is a real opportunity for the journalism students to learn a lesson about real world journalism.
Also, the First Ammendment doesn’t apply here, nor in most cases of “censorshhip”. The First Ammendment prohibits the Federal government, specifically Congress, from censoring news media. ANybody else is free to censor, unless state constitutions prohibit censorship.
I certainly expect a professor to understand these distinctions, even if he/she does not teach the Constitution.
Mirroring the above commenter, I will defend to death the right of myself and anyone to free speech. You have as much right to say whatever the hell makes you happy, as much as I have the right to do the same, that much is true. If the speech of some individual condones violence and hate, and that person spews it on their own personal blog, it’s still reprehensible, but that’s his prerogative. It is, however, also the prerogative of an organization such as a *CAMPUS* newspaper to make the call that they will not promote bad judgment. Unless you can tell me and every woman on your campus and in the real world that it’s perfectly ok to harm and humiliate them for the proverbial lulz, then the bloody newspaper should have perhaps put some thought into allowing their columnists to spew their rhetoric somewhere else.
Now should they be banished entirely? probably not. But should there be sanction? Oh yes. You learn not only by making mistakes, you learn by the consequences thereof.
1. The first amendment refers to government’s suppression of speech, and therefore does not apply in this case.
2. Imagine the article were promoting the humiliation of black students, and the “apology” said it was just talking about the attitudes that every 18-22 year old has.
I thought college was supposed to provide an education. Apparently not at Fairfield.
Dr. Greenberg,
This is quite possibly the most well written and best response that I have heard come out of this debacle yet. Freedom of speech is one of the rights that this country was founded on, a right that not even the highest court in the land would dare oppose and has upheld every time it was challenged. The University has this complex where they think that they have some what of a dictatorship over the student body and this is just another example. The supposed legislative branch of FUSA (of which I was a part of) is constantly suppressed any time it goes against the administration’s policies. I agree completely with your thoughts here, words are a catalyst for action. Freedom of speech is one of our foundational rights and no one should ever be silenced. If you have a problem with what someone says than use your words to counter them, that’s what debate is and it should be encouraged. This situation is just wrong, the university should have no role in this whatsoever. As for the pending charges against the student who wrote the article, any court who considers them should no longer be recognized as legitimate. It’s high time that the administration start backing students and encouraging a learning environment rather than laying the hammer, this isn’t High School. Thank God we still have free-thinking professors like you Dr. Greenberg to stand up to the 4th floor of the BCC. Bravo. I would have loved to hear what Dr. Orman’s thoughts would have been on this issue.
–Former Senator ‘09
You were my senator?!?!??! Even if you were unopposed while running, I sure hope I didn’t vote for you on principle alone!
“Former Senator ‘09″, you have no idea what you’re talking about. I respect Dr. Greenberg, but he made this whole thing worse and is not doing wonders for the other professors who have a better understanding of what’s going on.
Welp, no wonder the Senate spend 3/4 of the 2008-09 year “rewriting the constitution” or whatever you were doing. Useless. I pick dictatorship any day over the joke known as 99% of FUSA. You people are FUSA President (who does real work) and his/her event planning staff.
Fairfield students need to get over themselves. I never thought I’d say that Fairfield professors need to get over Fairfield students too. Everyone, people form a line behind “Former Senator ‘09″.
“Freedom of speech is one of the rights that this country was founded on, a right that not even the highest court in the land would dare oppose and has upheld every time it was challenged”
Well. That’s not really true at all (as I’m assuming you are referring to the Supreme Court). It’s restricted by the “clear and present danger” standard, and words that by their very nature involve danger to the public peace. No offense, but did you even read Dr. Greenerg’s letter? He cites Gitlow v New York, WHICH RESTRICTS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I mean he is citing the dissent, but it is the dissent because the majority upholds the restrictions. And then there are the obscenity restrictions – haven’t you heard of “I’ll know it when I see it”?
Regardless, it only applies to State action. Not to a private University in Connecticut (private universities have consistently been held not to receive enough state funds to constitute State action).
I know you are trying to argue about how freedom of speech plays a fundamental role in our society and American culture as a whole. I understand, and agree in many ways. But please, if you’re going to talk about Constitutional law, know what you’re talking about.
Alumn 09 you’re obviously another one of those people who has no idea what really goes on and bases his/or her opinion on whats written about us in the mirror (ironic eh?) You’re wrong on every level here. Professors absolutely have a role here, they are the people charged with educating us. This is a learning opportunity about what free expression is an what constitutes good journalism. The school has no business censoring or suppressing whats written in the mirror. While I found it funny I agree that it was a pretty tasteless and thoughtless article, but then again the whole point is to get a rise out of people. Either way it should be up to the mirror’s editorial board to control the content of their own paper, not 4th Floor BCC.
RE: ALUM ‘09
The students at the school need a voice, whether you agree with it or not. Your right to say no, is sharing an umbrella with my right to say yes. Let them publish what they want no matter who’s pays for it. Its not the written words that your paying for its the forum to do so. Criticize the individual, not the medium, and use that medium to do so. You have the right to do so as long as the school does not listen to people like you.
When a professional newspaper makes a mistake (ie: The New York Times), the entire entity is not shut down. The Mirror should not be, either. If The Mirror is not exempt from professional journalism standards, than let them handle the situation like adults and like professional journalists. They are capable of apologizing and taking the necessary steps to correct the situation without the university treating them like children who need to be punished (ie. taking away funding).
No, this article should not necessarily have been published. No, I don’t agree with it. But the entire newspaper should not be silenced, either. There are other people at stake here who played no role whatsoever in the publishing of this article, and the entire journalism program (students’ internships with The Mirror, paid jobs, real world experience) would be shut down. I don’t really think that would be the solution.
“To attempt to use the heavy hand of the administration to effectively censor and silence controversial speech is by using in this case its power of the purse is the worst possible message we can send to our students.”
The “heavy hand” of the administration is, in this instance, taking a stance for its students. STUDENTS raised the initial issue, and peitioned for the administration to take a stance. Perhaps the administration should just sit and ignore these requests for comment to make everyone happy. Students at Fairfield are used to that attitude – let’s please everyone – becuase the majority were raised this way. The administration is responsible for what goes on on a college campus. So, when a student group raises a concern and actually sees some dialouge/action/communications from their leaders about the concern, it is my belief that such follow up encourages students to speak out about their concerns – the cornerstone of not only democracy but higher education. Unfortuanely, the administration has to take a stand and offend some for the greater good. Perhaps some who have commented (classmates, in fact,) do not see this as beneficial but at some point the administrative responsibility is to stand up for what is rigtht – when requested by the students.
“Either way it should be up to the mirror’s editorial board to control the content of their own paper, not 4th Floor BCC.”
Quite beneficial to bash the 4th floor once you’ve graduated and gotten what you needed.
I’ve been bashing the dean’s office and Mark Reed for my entire 4 years at Fairfield. Personally I believe that Tom Pellegrino is the only level headed person in there that actually speaks for the students. The rest of them run wild and do as they please, like Mark Reed’s garden apartment idea in the townhouses, yeah that was a winner. Point is their response to every difficulty concerning students is to shut it down like 100 nights and clam jam. Those are separate issues but if your read the letter from the Society of Professional Journalists they sum up the issue perfectly: This should be a educational opportunity to learn what constitutes journalism. It the mirror’s independence suffers because of it it will just be the start down a long slippery slope.
Although no one can deny the importance of our rights as Americans and although I believe in fighting for those rights I do also believe in things such as respect and dignity for another human being. I am not one to comment on articles, especially not if I am against them but this will be my exception. Being a Fairfield undergrad and now a grad I have seen many sides of this University; some ugly and some beautiful. This, is a perfect example of the ugliness of our school. I came to Fairfield to feel safe and although that is not something anyone can ever fully promise you, what they can promise is that they will do everything in their power to protect you. We put a lot of trust into this school when we decide to come. We agree to make this school our home for four years and we hope that those in charge are doing everything they can to protect us while we are here. And then to think, we pay people to educate us and this is what they have to say! Perhaps that’s why I try my best to stay away from those classes “up the hill.”
The truth is the he said/she said column has always meant to push the line between appropriate and inappropriate. However, the students have always known not to cross that line. I read this article the day it came out and my mouth dropped. I was appalled but not surprised by the comments. As Fairfield students we have a tendency to think we are untouchable. We tend to think that we can get out of any situation based on our parents money and power and the sad part is, most of the time we do. But there comes a time in our lives when we must realize that our parents cannot hold our hands forever and we must take responsibility for what we say and do. The problem is, we can say whatever we want but we then must accept the fact that there are consequences for our actions. Welcome to the real world! A comment like this in the workplace would be a field day for HR. You would have a sexual assault claim put out against you immediately. So in my opinion, THANK YOU Dean Pellegrino for standing up for the student body and telling the mirror that the school will not foster such behavior. Say what you want, but don’t be surprised or angry when you are then held responsible for your words.
You cannot live in the Fairfield bubble forever. It’s best you learn that before it’s too late