Search News


Browse Archives

News

The Press and Morgan State U.

July 27, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

At Morgan State University, the student newspaper's adviser was respected by the student journalists and went to bat for them in fights with the administration. Now the adviser is out of a job -- and a national journalism group is today censuring the university, saying that it got rid of Denise Brown for doing her job.

College Media Advisers, the national group that represents people like Brown, conducted an investigation of why her employment ended on June 30, gathering documents, interviewing some players in the situation, and offering to mediate a settlement (an offer that the university declined), and then today issuing a report with its censure decision on the university. The report calls Morgan State's policies "legally questionable" and says that they denied student journalists the right of free expression and resulted in the unfair termination of Brown from her position.

Morgan State issued a statement Sunday in which it "takes issue with the use of the term 'firing' " by the College Media Advisers, saying that this is a case where a contract was not renewed. As to why, the university said the following: "The decision not to renew Ms. Brown's contract was based on personnel issues, and not specifically related to her service as 'adviser' to the student newspaper. As is the case with most personnel matters, the university is not at liberty to discuss the issues involved because of privacy considerations. We emphatically deny that the voices of any of our student journalists have been silenced or their independence stifled by the university and look forward to continuing to work with the staff of The Spokesman newspaper."

According to the investigation conducted by College Media Advisers, Brown's termination had everything to do with her work with the students on the staff of The Spokesman, and the newspaper itself has reported that it is aware that some of its articles angered administrators, prompting them to have Brown produce staff members to answer questions.

Based on e-mail messages and other documents the national group studied, it found that the division between Brown and her bosses followed a series of articles (some of them opinion pieces) criticizing the student government and its ties to the administrators who run the student affairs division. Brown was told to produce the authors of the pieces for one-on-one meetings with administrators at which they would be asked questions about the articles, including their sources -- a request for information that College Media Advisers called "questionable." Brown suggested a group meeting instead, telling administrators the students weren't comfortable with individual meetings.

Further, College Media Advisers cited an e-mail sent in response to its inquiries by Rick Perry, vice president for student affairs, which said: "I can say that the decision not to renew the contract was not primarily due to the content or publication of student material. There was much more to it than that.... It is understood that students have broad latitude to publish what they wish. It is preferable that their attributions to others be informed by facts, and that ‘reporters’ at least give the appearance of having attempted to get both sides of the story.”

According to College Media Advisers, the "e-mail indicates that, while the decision to remove Ms. Brown was not 'primarily' because of issues of content, it was at least partly because of issues of content. Moreover, Perry’s commentary about his standards of journalism seems to imply that such standards, as represented by published articles, were in mind when Brown’s contract was not renewed." According to the group, these are not appropriate grounds for removing an adviser.

Further, the group noted that Brown -- who has a journalism background -- is being replaced by someone with a public relations background, and she has already clashed with yearbook staffers by demanding prior approval of pages.

The College Media Advisers censure requests three actions by the university: Brown's reappointment, "governing documents for student media that will allow students to practice journalism without prior review or post-publication challenges by administrators" and "written guidelines for the performance of the adviser’s duties that follow the CMA Code of Ethics, recognized as the national standard for college media advising."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Press and Morgan State U.

  • status
  • Posted by jimsecor , wandering scholar on July 27, 2009 at 7:15am EDT
  • All it takes for an adminstrator is upset and anger, there is no requirement to substantiate position, for they have "arrived," they have privilege. And that's the name of the game, folks.

  • Administrative Censorship
  • Posted , Professor on July 27, 2009 at 8:30am EDT
  • As an alumnus and recent former faculty of Morgan State University, I regret to say that administrative coercion and harassment of students and faculty are quite commonplace. At least such harassment was common when I departed. I can recall an ominous administrative memos to students which threatened them with dismissal for assembling to protest University or its policies. I recall one such memo shown to me by a student which came from the Office of Student Affairs. When students asked me what I thought of this I could only tell them that I believed that Constitutional rights to peaceably assembly applied to Morgan State University, but that I couldn't be sure whether or not the University would respect these rights. I learned that even before I began teaching in the College of Liberal Arts, the administration of then President Earl Richardson had arbitrarily dissolved the Faculty Senate, replacing it with his own body designated by him as the university council. That council was largely an extension of the Administration, and the faculty largely reduced to advisory roles or perhaps the role court jestor. However you view it, there was and is no independent faculty body at Morgan; and the autonomy of student organizations was compromised as well. The univesity has been censured before by the AAUP for its violation of faculty rights. There was a generally punitive attitude toward dissent, and an unwillingness or inability of university "leadership" to give ear to view which differed from its own.

    I regret to say that I would be surprised if the firing of the advisor to the student paper THE SPOKESMAN were not a punitive act of politically motivated censorship regardless of what pretext the University offers as its explanation. I'm sad to say that such punitive measures are a normal part of the governance of my old Alma Mater.

  • Morgan State
  • Posted by Guido Stempel , distinguished professor emeritus, journalism at Ohiom University on July 27, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • First respondent is correct that Morgan State doesn't have to explain action to the public, but they will have to explain it in court if the students sues. The supposed concern about privacy is a cop out.

  • Learned behavior?
  • Posted on July 27, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • The behavior described is now so common that I wonder if intimidation of faculty & students isn't taught at a central source--maybe the "finishing school" where so many incipient administrators are sent.

    While freedom of expression was once a sacred tenet in American universities, such is no longer the case. It is now common for presidents to seize control of campus press and email to preclude anything other than their own voices from being heard. The worst of the lot parrot "confidential personnel decision" while simultaneously leaking stories to newspapers and email lists to try to ruin the careers of their victims. Victims are often competent, respected people that insecure presidents imagine/fear might rally faculty against them. The imagined fear is usually nothing more than a fantasy. Few members of a university really want to make their leaders look foolish; doing so makes one's whole institution look foolish.

    "Confidential personnel decision" is the current game played to exercise unethical abuses and duck accountability. Scale up such behavior, and you'll see nothing more than the behavior of thugs running banana republics. In my experience, the only current way to get rid of such administrators is to have them lose an expensive lawsuit, after which trustees, legislators, regents, etc. realize they've hired an insecure liability.