Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

You Want ME to Write the Institutional History?

April 17, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

For all that they are seen as bastions of knowledge and unfettered flow of information, colleges and universities are not typically known for welcoming rigorous scrutiny of themselves. They often have love-hate relationships with the journalists who cover them.

So imagine my surprise in 2002 when R. Dean Mills, dean of the University of Missouri’s Journalism School, asked me, an investigative reporter on its faculty, to write an institutional history of the school, the world’s first and arguably best, to commemorate its centennial.

The offer felt like an attractive one -- he agreed to pay a sum commensurate with what a New York City book publisher would pay for a trade title found in the country’s major bookstores, and had lined up the University of Missouri Press, a first-rate academic press, to publish it. Still, I said no -- I was under contract to write a trade book, I did not think I could handle a second book project at the same time, and the idea of an institutional history sounded potentially boring. But the dean demonstrated persistence. Each month that passed, the money became increasingly appealing, in part because my advance from the trade publisher had long since run out.

I was sure, though, that my unshakeable demand -- complete editorial independence – would cause the dean to draw back. I was wrong. When he agreed to that condition, I said yes, despite my reservations.

You have it right: Mills chose the person most experienced at unearthing skeletons, digging up dirt, (substitute your own cliché, if you like), to tell his institution’s history. Was he crazy, or gutsy, or what?

Protected by my written promise of complete editorial independence, I began digging -- er, researching. What happened over the next five years surprised me, a veteran of seven trade books, over and over.

Surprise Number One: The secrets hidden in archives. As an investigative reporter, I am accustomed to being stonewalled when I seek information from government agencies, private sector corporations and even not-for-profits such as charities. Yes, I had used archives before, so I grasped their importance. That said, what I found at the University of Missouri archives astounded me at times. The dedicated, skilled archivists delivered box after box to the table where I was taking notes. They never withheld folders, never inquired about my motives, never complained about the voluminous nature of my requests.

Inside the boxes I found revealing information about journalism school programs (including budget increases and cuts) as well as documents about faculty, staff and students, many of them still living. Negotiations preceding faculty hires, disciplinary panels, tenure and promotion applications and votes – all there for my consumption.

Surprise Number Two: The prickly questions of self-censorship I faced. Access to sensitive files meant potential invasions of privacy if I decided to publish what I found. As an investigative reporter writing in the omniscient third person, I worry about invasions of privacy infrequently. A story important to a broad readership must usually trump concern about an individual. That formulation might sound heartless, but those uncomfortable with it should never become investigative reporters.

I felt differently as the chronicler of the journalism school’s history. My name would appear as author, but I did not consider the book so much “mine” as I did “ours,” with me representing current and former faculty, staff and students. I understood from the start that lots of folks constituting “ours” wanted me to produce an upbeat centennial history rather than an expose. As a result, I discussed only the tenure and promotion controversies necessary to document themes, such as the troubles faculty at what is partly a vocational school encounter when being judged for tenure/promotion by a campus-wide committee of Ph.D.s in biology, physics and history.

Not all the self-censorship puzzlements arose from archival material. For example, I knew from my decades at the school of faculty on faculty extramarital affairs; faculty on staff extramarital affairs; and faculty members who began romantic liaisons with students. How to handle those, especially because at least a few affected the educational atmosphere within the school? I considered writing about the impact of some affairs without naming names. But that would have violated my personal ban on anonymous sources and subjects. Furthermore, failing to name names would have cast a shadow on the uninvolved. For better or worse (probably worse), I omitted all such sexual liaisons from the book, except for rumors involving the founding dean and a student, rumors that had been published previously. That student became a faculty member, as well as the dean’s second wife after he spent years as a widower.

Surprise Number Three: Examining my biases. I arrived at the University of Missouri in 1966 as a student. I graduated from the journalism school in 1970. In 1978, I joined the faculty, eventually became a full professor with tenure, and continue to teach there part-time. That means for more than 40 years I have known many of the people mentioned in the book. I never pretended to put aside all biases. I devote more paragraphs than some other author might to my mentors. I devote more paragraphs than other authors would to Investigative Reporters and Editors, a professional group with headquarters at the journalism school; I served as executive director of IRE from 1983-1990, and still serve as an editor on IRE’s magazine. I did my best to avoid score settling, but probably failed to erase or even hide all my negative reactions to certain individuals. In the preface, I warn readers: “When I possess firsthand knowledge of people and occurrences, I have allowed that knowledge to inform the narrative. I am acutely aware that my firsthand knowledge is open to interpretation by others with different values and vantage points.”

Surprise Number Four: The dilemmas of context. The journalism school has been home to ugly episodes of racism, sexism, religious intolerance, homophobia and ageism. I worried about slamming the journalism school for such behavior when the same ugliness permeated the entire university (the first African-American faculty member did not arrive until 1969), city, county, state and nation. I eventually decided to cover a few of the most significant ugly incidents in depth, and omit the rest.

Well, the book is generally available now (press.umsystem.edu). Its main title is The Journalism of Humanity, part of a quotation from the founding dean Walter Williams, who, by the way, never attended college but eventually became the University of Missouri’s president. The subtitle is “A Candid History of the World’s First Journalism School.” I believe the word “candid” is accurate, despite what I omitted.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on You Want ME to Write the Institutional History?

  • Why Missouri Ranks as Among Best
  • Posted by Michael Bugeja , Director, Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication at Iowa State University on April 17, 2008 at 7:10am EDT
  • The Greenlee School at Iowa State is, in many respects, a younger sister school to Missouri, with almost as long a history and with tremendous admiration for our colleagues there who often set benchmarks for us and other programs in the region.

    What you should know about Missouri, first and foremost, is the dedication of its faculty in setting, preserving and upholding journalism standards. That faculty also is generous, serving on national boards and editing journals and visiting programs like ours upon request.

    That sense of service to the profession is golden in any discipline. Rare, too. We enjoy the same with the University of Iowa's journalism program. We admire Syracuse's program and faculty, again because of its leadership and service to the profession.

    Who would think that a journalism history book about an educational program would prompt such an outpouring at this early time in the day before my workday begins at the Greenlee School? Well, it is refreshing, truly, to learn that an investigative reporter whom we so admire is author of this work of historical significance.

    This has to be a first, and a new standard, to be sure, and reason enough for us to order Steve Weinberg's book, which will be featured in our reading room.

    Keep in mind that the praise here is motivated in part as well by some of journalism's most prominent news programs gravitating toward branding and forgetting the importance of investigative journalism, freedom of information laws, media ethics and so much more that can be found in abundance at the Missouri School.

    We hope Missouri and other schools, including mine, will uphold standards in years to come based on what transpired in the past, good and bad, to learn from and improve our service to students and the Fourth Estate.

  • Posted by Tim Lacy on April 17, 2008 at 3:15pm EDT
  • Dear Professor Weinberg,

    As a historian and alum of Mizzou (1994), I have a question related to "Suprise Number Four." My concern tempers the enthusiasm, I think, of Professor Bugeja's praise:

    If you were ~truly~ vexed by "the dilemmas" of context, did you seek the opinions of historians at Mizzou or elsewhere to help you pick and choose "the most significant" events?

    Although I love it that reporters feel confident enough to write histories, there's a reason why history exists as a discipline _separate_ from journalism. While the vaunted and justifiably proud J-School teaches good writing and reporting, do they also teach historical context?

    If you did not solicit a historian for help, why?

    Sincerely,

    Tim

  • replying to Mr. Lacy's inquiry
  • Posted by Steve Weinberg on April 17, 2008 at 4:10pm EDT
  • Yes, I talked to at least a dozen professional historians, including several at the University of Missouri. In addition, I devoured books about historigraphy. As you might surmise, I also discussed these matters with my editors at the Press and my colleagues within journalism education. The perspectives I encountered enriched my mind. Ultimately, however, nobody could address the dilemma except for me.

  • Pride, Candidness, and Skepticism
  • Posted by Tim Lacy on April 17, 2008 at 6:25pm EDT
  • Professor Weinberg,

    Thank you for responding to my inquiry. I nevertheless remain skeptical of the project:

    - As a long-time faculty member, should anyone be shocked that your surprises are mostly positively spun? You know of sexual liaisons, and perhaps sexual politics within the school, but excluded them---except for the safe potshot at the long-dead founding dean? You fussed over slamming the J-School, normally an enlightened part of the university, when other parts of the university were guilty of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.? You held back on some first-hand knowledge of ugliness?

    - You congratulated yourself on not accepting the original offer to write the story, but then decided the ~money~ was attractive. Although you examined your biases, did you think about how the money might've obligated or affected you?

    - Did you ever consider why they kept wanting ~you~ to write this story---a man who had invested 40 some years of his life into making the school a better place? Doesn't that make you someone who is ~least likely~ to evaluate the J-School's historical record, or comparative context, harshly?

    - So you know many of the figures of the book, presumably many of them still living, but fears of libel never affected your selection and emphasis? You were still ~as candid~ as you could be?

    In sum, you have every right to be proud of the work you did to put together the book. It's hard work to write good institutional histories. But let's not be overly self-congratulatory on the candidness of your work and your objectivity. No matter your efforts, your web of relationships and interests---despite your editorial independence---make this a biased commemoration.

    Why do I care? The title and tone of this article seemed a bit overly smug (i.e. "Mills chose the person most experienced at unearthing skeletons, digging up dirt, (substitute your own cliché, if you like), to tell his institution’s history. Was he crazy, or gutsy, or what?").

    I say "Or what?" Or perhaps crafty.

    - TL

  • Steve Weinberg
  • Posted by Patrick K. Lackey on April 17, 2008 at 8:30pm EDT
  • If Steve Weinberg wrote it, it's honest and good.

  • Posted by Jane Robbins, PhD on April 18, 2008 at 7:30am EDT
  • Mr. Lacy is spot-on. Mr. Weinberg is not only a non-historian "surprised" by the resources in archives, but an insider with deep continuing interests and connections to the organization about which he was hired to write, including associations from which he derives at least part of his income, reputation, and personal network. The Dean could readily have chosen a wholly disinterested, trained historian to write this book.
    I imagine one of the lessons taught in journalism school is, "consider your source." While the genre of institutional and corporate history carries the connotation of "marketing document," and therefore this book is likely little different from most of its kind, it cannot be considered a work of impartial history. To subtitle it "candid" seems to protest too much. This is an assignment that, in my understanding, professional ethics would dictate turning down.

  • Journalists and Historians
  • Posted by Christie on April 18, 2008 at 9:40am EDT
  • I have no doubt that journalists can write some good histories although having gone through a centennial book project with a group of journalists recently I can say that when journalists write a history of an institution that they are closely and intimately involved in that the history becomes less fact and more rumor no matter how many "facts" they throw in from the archives.

    I'm sure Mr. Weinberg did his best to be as objective as he could when writting this history, however, my strong feeling is that no matter who you are or what your profession that you cannot write a truly objective history about an institution that you have been involved with for any length of time. Being an archivist and historian myself I would not trust myself to write an objective history of any institution that I have worked for presently or in the past.

  • Complicated
  • Posted by Historian and former archivist on April 18, 2008 at 1:40pm EDT
  • It is unclear whether, as an university employee, Mr. Weinger received access to records that an external researcher might have been denied. Did he have unfettered access to records because he was on the university payroll? Or did he see everything that an external researcher might have seen?
    That he saw information about living persons is not in an of itself surprising. (Consider any Presidential Library that recently has released information about living persons who played a role in a President’s administration. This happens all the time. But it usually does not involve a data dump, there is a screening process involved to see what is releasable under statute.)

    As to withholding folders, it is unclear whether the items in question had been archivally processed or not. Did any of the folders contain what archivists refer to as withdrawal notices for items that had been taken out in processing? Were there any redactions on specific documents? As an employee, he may have been able to see unprocessed information.

    Archivists at private and public sector archives usually screen materials and redact certain information related to personal privacy. For example, they would not allow a researcher to see documents that still bear the Social Security Number of a living person. They also have to keep HIPAA requirements in mind when medical information is involved. There are laws, regulations, and, in the case of some private collections, donor-restrictions, which can govern what people can see. From the description in the article, the materials Mr. Weinberg saw most likely resulted from records management within the University rather than from donations of documents.

    The question of whether it is better to write from inside or outside does not have an easy answer. (Especially as it may be difficult to discuss in the first place, without getting sidetracked by professional rivalry – with all its risks of snarkiness -- and other issues.) There are historians who could write an institutional history well from inside or outside, just as there are journalists who could do this well from inside or outside. This includes writing about cultural and environmental issues. A writer could address issues of faculty relations and faculty-student relations as they appeared as managerial challenges, handled well or not by the administration. This would acknowledge that such were an issue but get around the question of whether to include titillating tidbits, viewed perhaps through a personal prism, about individuals.

    Yes, historians have better training in methodologies of research than do journalists. But that doesn’t mean they all apply it equally well. Or, has been discussed on sites such as HNN, screen out their own biases. So much depends on who is doing the writing.

    Insiders may bring to bear valuable insights about institutional culture and behaviors which outsiders only may glimpse through a process of studying documents and doing oral history interviews. (Obviously, the value of the information gained through oral history interviews depends on how willing subjects are to open up to an outsider. An outsider brings objectivity to the interview process but an insider may have greater intrinsic contextual sophistical and also may face fewer barriers of trust.) But, as Tim Lacy points out, it takes skill and effort to use insider knowledge effectively.

    Two good links for articles that show writing from the inside can work for federal historians:

    Victoria Harden's "What Do Federal Historians Do?" at
    http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/Issues/1999/9905/9905pub4.cfm

    and

    Roger Launius's history of the NASA history office at
    http://history.nasa.gov/launiuspharticle.pdf

    See also the Society for History in the Federal Government's "Principles and Standards for Federal History Programs" at
    http://www.shfg.org/SHFGv3PROFSTAND.html

    Finally, one option for those who may doubt whether they can write an history from inside but have insights to share is to instead write a memoir of their experiences, into which they can weave aspects of institutional history.

  • A University of Missori J-School Moment I Won't Forget
  • Posted by Sharon Dotson on April 19, 2008 at 4:50pm EDT
  • My favorite memory of attending University of Missouri J-School happened on the first day of classes. Milton Gross, the associate dean at the time, stepped into one a class where all of us were newbies. One by one, he looked around the room and addressed the girls.

    “Every time some newspaper editor calls me asking if I can recommend a talented female graduate he can hire right of school to become his secretary, I tell him our students are educated to become journalists, not secretaries.”

    Nobody laughed. Every girl in the room was drop-jawed with shock. This was 1965 and we knew he wasn’t joking.

  • Posted by Georgia NeSmith on April 21, 2008 at 1:20pm EDT
  • Having been a student of Dean Mills many years ago, I'm not the least surprised that he would grant complete editorial control to the author of an institutional history of the Mizzou J-School. In fact, it would be surprising to me if he did otherwise.

    However, this sentence gives me pause: "You have it right: Mills chose the person most experienced at unearthing skeletons, digging up dirt, (substitute your own cliché, if you like), to tell his institution’s history."

    It wouldn't bother me so much if Weinberg said "Mills chose someone experienced at..." or "Mills chose someone with a history of..." or "Mills chose someone with a career devoted to..."

    But claiming to be "the most experienced" seems to me to be arrogant and self-aggrandizing. How one even measures that in comparison to other potential authors is beyond me.

    Also, it is clear from what Weinberg says here that his position as an insider at the school and his perception of the task he was given did in fact color the way he presented his findings.

    Mr. Weinberg's investigative reporting skills aside, the final result was another institutional history. It may be more candid than the usual PR fluff that accompanies such assignments, but by his own admission Weinberg has left much negative information out.

    So, would an outsider be given the same access to archives? I may be naive but I believe yes. I think the archivists' commitment to scholarly integrity would still be there.

    But whether researching and producing a trade or scholarly book on the subject would prove profitable is quite another story. The fact remains that the book was commissioned and probably wouldn't exist without that commission.

    As Dean Mills provided my introduction to cultural theory with respect to how scholarship gets produced, I doubt he harbors any illusions about this book being "objective." His choice for author indicates a commitment to ensuring it would not be solely a "puff piece." It also indicates a level of PR shrewdness. You can imagine the firestorm of criticism that would result if he gave the job to someone whose investigative credentials were less impeccable.

  • Posted by Steve Weinberg on April 22, 2008 at 4:55am EDT
  • Georgia NeSmith concludes that I am arrogant and self-aggrandizing as the result of a few words in my essay. But she is mistaken in concluding that I am comparing myself to all reporters alive. Rather, I am referring only to the Missouri Journalism School faculty available to Dean Mills.