Hypocrisy exposed
Pendulum staff questions sincerity behind university's pursuit of free speech
Following comments from the community, we have published a follow up to this editorial to clarify The Pendulum's stance.
--------
The guise of meaningful exchange and public discourse has been ripped away to expose Elon University's true priorities when it comes to free speech on campus.
We've seen a special College Coffee, discussions and forums, the creation of a Speakers' Corner and the Elon administration make free speech and the First Amendment rights of students a matter of high importance. Yet in the last week, the university administration has bluntly put an end to this dialogue by punishing a student for speaking candidly about a serious campus problem.
The Pendulum's only wish is for the Elon administration to stick to its own word.
Smith Jackson, vice president and dean of Student Life, spoke at this month's First Thursday Forum and said, "Obviously we choose not to restrict free speech on campus."
Less than 24 hours later, Elon sophomore Hilary Stevenson was sent an email stating she could be charged with violating the Elon Honor Code based on her statements in last week's edition of The Pendulum. In the article, "As Tap House thrives, security issues increase," Stevenson said she had a fake ID that made it easy for her to drink underage. Stevenson was offered the opportunity to speak anonymously and chose to have her name published. Her statement was part of a larger story that focused on the lack of security at this popular nightspot and the prevalence of underage drinking at the bar.
Despite Elon's commitment to an open exchange of information and students' right to free speech, the administration has hypocritically chosen to stifle the student body's voice through a blatant act of censorship.
The Pendulum is a public forum that encourages, supports and demands honest dialogue from students, faculty and staff. The administration's decision to pursue charges against one of our sources is not only narrow-minded, but also counterproductive to its overarching goal to limit underage drinking.
Police cars from both Campus Safety and Police and the Elon Police Department were stationed outside of Tap House Thursday, one of the bar's most popular nights. Before entering the bar, students were given a new set of rules, which included a new membership requirement for entrance. These are positive steps taken by the management of Tap House and local law enforcement agencies. Some may chalk it up to coincidences, but we strongly believe these changes are in direct response to the recent Pendulum article.
It's these positive changes the university seems to not only ignore but also devalue in its pursuit to punish one student. If the university is truly concerned with upholding the Honor Code and curbing underage drinking, then it would allow The Pendulum to do its job without interference by reprimanding students who choose to speak candidly about important issues.
"If what you want is for people as a community to come together and talk frankly and honestly about what problems exist and how to fix them, then you have to recognize punishing people who admit to violations that are over and done with will actually result in the perpetuating of the problem you're seeking to eliminate," said Adam Goldstein, attorney advocate at the Student Press Law Center.
What is just as concerning is the lack of comment from President Leo Lambert on this sudden and hypocritical turn in administrative policy, as a figure who has been at the forefront of this semester's discussions.
If the university administration truly cares and strives for free speech and an open exchange of ideas, it must drop the threat of charging students for partaking in that exchange. We are a community that must listen to one another, even when that dialogue is one not necessarily easy. The Elon administration has made a grave mistake and The Pendulum will not stand for it.
Elon must not create an environment where students are scared of repercussions and become unwilling to speak to The Pendulum or any other news organization.
Elon administration has the responsibility to respect the integrity of those who choose to come forward as honest participants in this so-called open dialogue.
Updated December 31, 2011
I would consider myself a staunch proponent of free speech in particular and constitutional freedoms in general; unfortunately, I think the argument in this article is highly misguided. This is in no way an issue of free speech of censorship. A student made an ill-advised decision to speak about illegal activity to a public news source, which subsequently published her comments. This speech - both the source's and the newspaper's - was not censored. Rather, the "prosecuting" agency (i.e. Elon) responded to an admission of both a crime and a direct honor code violation in the way that it would respond if the violation were brought to its attention in any other way. To ignore an individual admitting to have committed a crime, willfully and without lawful excuse, would be irresponsible and counter to the university's policies. Honest dialogue is important and necessary; however, if one is determined to admit their guilt in a criminal matter, s/he should do so anonymously. This is not a matter of free speech or censorship--it is a matter of poor decision making--both to commit the crime and to openly discuss it with the media.
This is not hypocrisy. It also doesn't stifle free speech. Students should be held accountable instead of admitting to a crime in a public newspaper. According to the digtriad.com last January, a fake id is a misdemeanor and can warrant jail time and loss of license for up to a year. Underage age drinking is a misdemeanor as well and you can risk losing your license for up to a year. This isn't censorship, it is admitting to serious crimes. So, two misdemeanors were admitted to in a public newspaper, and the school is being accused of censorship. Get real. The police have every right to step into this as well. Though, it is an extreme example, if someone writes an article about how to avoid getting caught in a murder investigation, and someone they interview happily admit how they did it and refuse anonymity, do you expect the police to leave that be? Or would you call it censorship issues? It is not stifling free speech, it is holding us responsible for our actions. I applaud the school for pressing disciplinary charges on this. It helps us to remember what will happen in the real world. The real world won't be as nice.
The website to the article for the charges is http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=154688&catid=327
The Pendulum should be wise enough to not put students in this situation in the first place. This is not a violation of free speech. She was allowed to say what she wanted and the university is not doing anything to punish that, but rather the illegal action she said that she participated in. The Pendulum should have been more responsible in protecting the student by not allowing her to use her name, but as we have seen time and time again the Pendulum is not responsible in any of their reporting.
Both this article and the one that implicated the students are examples of reckless, irresponsible journalism. We expect and deserve better.
I no way did the university stop the Pendulum or the girl from speaking freely. This article calls Elon out on hypocrisy, but one could do the same if they decided not to punish someone who did not adhere to the honor code. Also, the girl has a fake ID which is a crime in and of itself. So while the violation in which she used the fake ID to get alcohol might be over and done with, having a fake ID means she is currently in violation of the honor code. I fully support the decision of Elon's administration to punish her for doing so.
If this piece could have ever made sense at all, maybe it would have worked as an opinion piece. But not an editorial on behalf of your entire staff. As it stands, it only brings into question the whole staff's understanding of what free speech constitutes and the newspaper's ability to recognize, honor, and uphold the First Amendment. An opinion piece would limit this embarrassing misunderstanding of "free speech" to one person; an editorial puts it on your entire organization.
Also, italicizing every other word in the last sentence does not make it more compelling. Please do not resort to such juvenile writing tactics.
This entire editorial is not only embarrassing on the part of the Pendulum, but unfortunately on Elon as well. For a Communication program that prides itself on the outstanding students they churn out, it is a shame to see that some of them still cannot grasp that freedom of speech does not place you above the law. They also can't seem to understand the definition of censorship. This article was not cut before publication, it was not ripped away from students once the administration realized what was printed, and Hilary's voice was not silenced in any way. Unfortunately she made the mistake of admitting to not one, but two crimes, and it would have been more concerning had the administration not done anything.
Summary of all comments: The Pendulum is a terrible excuse for a newspaper.
What idiot wanted to ruin fake IDs in the first place. I thought this school was getting smarter #karma #RACIST
When is the last time a whistle blower didn't get in trouble? This girl wanted people to know that she was saying, therefore she should be held responsible for her actions; should she not? #sucks2suck
All this article has shown is The Pendulum has zero integrity and even less professionalism. They don't understand the basic ideas of journalism, Elon's Honor Code, and the law. They exposed no hypocrisy, all they exposed was how awful of a newspaper it is.
As someone who respects and enjoys The Pendulum week to week, I was disappointed to see this sensational editorial and headline complete dominate the latest issue.
During my time at Elon, and especially during my time as Student Union Board president, my interactions with the Pendulum and Pendulum staff were always positive. I always felt that the reporters had my best interests in mind, in the sense that they were always intent on being thorough and accurate, actively listening and always repeating my quotes to me to make sure they had captured exactly what I'd said. Even on matters like the premature reveal of the spring show artists--which SUB does its best to conceal in an effort to create anticipation of the concert--the paper was able to legitimately report on the situation without forcing me to compromise my loyalty to my organization and board members.
That is why this week's editorial is particularly disappointing. The fault at hand does not belong to the university administration; rather, it belongs to The Pendulum. As an organization that has always operated with a high degree of professionalism and integrity, I fail to see a logical or compelling enough reason that could possibly lead you to believe that including Hilary Stevenson's name in your original article would make your story any more powerful, reputable, or valid. Truthfully, the only reason I can see that the paper chose to include her name was to be inciting and provocative.
Now, Stevenson is being investigated for being in violation of the Honor Code, and you believe that to be a blatant disregard for students' civil rights, and furthermore, an act of hypocrisy on the part of university administration. This rationalization is flawed for a number of reasons, but perhaps most of all because it shifts blame that, as an a reputable, respected and honorable organization you should be willing to accept yourselves, and because it condemns university administration for acting in accordance with the standards and expectations it has set for itself--in a sense, its own honor code.
Once, my former organization advisor said to us, "I never want to get you in trouble, but if you put it in my face, I will have to act." I believe the university acted under this same sentiment. In fact, it would be hypocritical of them to be aware that a student was using a fake I.D. and to turn the blind eye. I do not believe this is not a matter of free speech, and I will never claim to be an expert on such matters, but I must reject Adam Goldstein's analogy of the "no-fly" list. The university is in fact dedicated to putting an end to illegal activities. Dr. Jackson did not suggest that students continue to participate in illegal activities, rather, he simply suggests that if a student chooses to speak on his/her participation in such activities, he/she should either opt to be an anonymous source or fully accept that there will be consequences for any admission of illegal activities.
You should have published the story using anonymous sources across the board in an effort to protect your sources. Now, it feels as through you are backtracking, creating a completely unrelated crusade regarding free speech rights, in an effort to express your regret that Stevenson may potentially be punished and to show support for her situation. The fact is, The Pendulum acted without concern for what might happen to Stevenson when it published the article--that was irresponsible.
Ultimately, however, I do believe that the Pendulum acts with the students' best interests in mind. In this case, I believe that the allure of a sensationalized, provocative story got the better of you. As the Pendulum calls upon the university to be consistent, I would suggest that the Pendulum do the same--please be consistent in continuing to publish the thorough, thoughtful, relevant, ethical stories you have published in the past--it is what this alum has always respected about you.
While I don't agree with the headline and wish the editorial was labeled as an editorial, I can see where The Pendulum is coming from. Throughout the semester, the university has been advocating open discussions on matters that are relevant and affect us all and by not commenting on this case, President Lambert basically stopped all efforts to communicate with students, thus making it appear as if there are no longer any open discussions on campus. Fault here doesn't lie on the administration or The Pendulum; it lie son both parties.
While I don't agree with the headline and wish the editorial was labeled as an editorial, I can see where The Pendulum is coming from. Throughout the semester, the university has been advocating open discussions on matters that are relevant and affect us all and by not commenting on this case, President Lambert basically stopped all efforts to communicate with students, thus making it appear as if there are no longer any open discussions on campus. Fault here doesn't lie on the administration or The Pendulum; it lies on both parties.
Before you go suggesting that a newspaper is being unprofessional or attacking it on such a broad level as saying it's a "terrible excuse for a newspaper," you actually have to understand what the professional standards are for that industry.
This article is fairly embarrassing for the Pendulum and the Communications department. The girl was allowed to speak and was in no way censored by Elon. Elon did not prevent her from making her statements, she was completely free to make them. She does not have the freedom to use a fake ID. If she'd admitted to another crime, like murdering another student or selling drugs to students, we'd be in a similar situation. Elon has the responsibility to investigate breaches in honor code and if a girl confesses openly to a breach, Elon should investigate it. How can you call it counterproductive to Elon's goal to limit underage drinking if they leave someone unpunished? What kind of standard is that setting? She was welcome to speak "frankly and honestly" about the problems that exist and she choose not to speak anonymously; those are not mutually exclusive. I believe the majority of students would have the foresight to remain anonymous if they wished to be involved in a Pendulum article that did originally intend to help restrict underage drinking. The Pendulum should apologize not only to Elon administration for criticizing them for doing their job but also apologize to all students for embarrassing itself in their complete misunderstanding of free speech.