What's in a Name? How a byline rewrote student expression

September 14, 2007

by Duncan Pickard

It is a story known well. A Tufts student-faculty committee finds that the Primary Source “reflects poor editorial practice” that does not “meet the high journalistic standards Tufts expects of its publications.” The committee members “challenge…campus publications” to be “fair and responsible” and affirm the view that community flourishes when people adhere to “basic principles of conduct.”

This might sound a lot like the Committee on Student Life (CSL) decision about the Primary Source in May (see the timeline below for the summary), but it actually comes from a decision made in 2002. The CSL condemned the Source for a graphic in a special section that made sexual references to the female leader of a student advocacy organization and struggled with handing down a consequence to a publication protected by the freedom of the press. The committee did not find the Source guilty of sexual harassment, as was the claim, and resolved to make a list of standards for student journalists to follow.

No such list was developed.

Then, last May, two students brought a complaint to the CSL, charging that the Source had harassed them and created a hostile environment with two unsigned special sections: “O Come All Ye Black Folk” from December, and “Islam—Arabic Translation: Submission” in April. The CSL this time found the Source responsible for the claims brought against them, imposed a requirement that all articles in the Source must have bylines, and recommended that the student Senate consider the morality of groups when funding them. Undergraduate dean Jim Glaser overturned the byline requirement after an appeal made last August.

If the CSL condemned the Source in a similar way five years ago, then why do people carry the same complaints against student journalists today? Without quantifiable standards, what is okay and what is not on the Tufts campus, and how do we respond to speech that we find offensive? What is the role of a judicial body like the CSL in regulating journalism?

Gavel Journalism

The CSL justified its position by writing that, while its members recognize that freedom of expression is one of the nation’s “founding principles,” “tolerance and respect for diversity are core values at Tufts” and are exemplified in the University’s non-discrimination policy. Their decisions are grounded in the conclusion that “Tufts, as a private institution, has an obligation to uphold” that policy.

“Our campus should be a place where students feel safe, respected, and valued. Freedom of speech should not be an unfettered license to violate the rights of other members of the community, without recourse,” the CSL wrote in their decision.

A primary reason that Dean Glaser overturned the CSL’s byline restriction is that, in his opinion, it is a violation of the First Amendment. “There’s a whole conversation to be had about whether requiring bylines restricts freedom of expression,” he said. “But that’s not what’s most important here. What’s important is that assigning a penalty in the context of a judicial decision against a publication violated the freedom of expression.”

Dean Glaser vacated the only part of the decision that required journalists to take particular action. Because of this, University counsel Dickens Mathieu believes “that the CSL’s decision in this case will not have long-lasting implications for the student press.”

Dean Glaser reached this decision after consultation with President Larry Bacow, student affairs Dean Bruce Reitman, and other top administrators. “Dean Glaser and I talked over the summer, and he consulted with University counsel, but the decision was his,” said President Bacow in an e-mail.

President Bacow wrote that, while Tufts is not bound by First Amendment expression requirements like public universities are, he intends to preside over the University as if it were. Kim Thurler, the University’s public relations director, told the Student Press Law Center that the intent of President Bacow’s statement was to “eliminate judicial review of speech that is simply unpopular or controversial.” The president intends to solidify this opinion in University policy with the trustees. “In retrospect, I think that the CSL was ill-advised to hear this case,” said President Bacow in an email.

“The implication of President Bacow’s announcement is that there will be no ‘judicial’ recourse at Tufts to contest controversial statements by the press,” said Mr. Mathieu. Despite President Bacow’s intentions, the CSL’s response to a similar case might be different, until the Trustees vote on a new policy next semester. “Given that there have been no changes in policy yet, I suspect that we would hear a [case similar to last May’s],” said Ken Orians, biology professor and incoming CSL faculty chair. “We need to examine our policies in relation to the Pachyderm and to the principles of free speech.”

Clara Chan (A’10), a member of the CSL last year and its only returning student member, is not sure that a judicial body should be left out of decisions regarding publications. When the CSL deliberated on their original decision, “we struggled trying to find the right balance between protecting students and protecting student rights,” said Ms. Chan. “A publication should be able to get what they want out there, to share what they think. But publications should also do a better job of respecting students. We also think they should make their intentions clearer in their publications, making their argument easier to understand. We thought that requiring bylines would help with that.”

Ms. Chan also feels that publications should be held to a higher standard of responsible speech because they can reach more people at one time than a single person, and are therefore more capable of creating a hostile environment.

She does not rule out the possibility of punishing a student individually for what they publish in a campus magazine. “If there were bylines, I think the individuals instead of the publication might have been brought for disciplinary action,” she said. “In that case, punishment could be justified from the dean of students.”

“Most of the campus was pretty outraged by what they published, so we felt justified in our decision,” said Ms. Chan. “We thought that requiring bylines would force the Source to carefully consider what they publish and make it more clear before it goes to print. We felt like no one took individual responsibility for what they published. We felt like they were hiding behind their anonymity, and that hurt the clarity of their argument.”

Dean Reitman disagrees with Ms. Chan. “If someone was calling you over and over again after you asked them not to, that’s not freedom of expression. That’s harassment,” said Dean Reitman. “But a publication can’t do that. There’s no such mechanism.”

The Byline Requirement

At least at one time, President Bacow thought requiring bylines would be a good solution to the problem. “What is particularly troubling about the Source article is that yet again a discrete minority within our community has been singled out for ridicule,” wrote President Bacow in a April 24 Viewpoint in the Tufts Daily condemning the Islamic parody. “And once again, the article is unsigned. No one seems willing to take personal responsibility for this particular expression of opinion.” And in defending her committee’s decision, faculty chair Barbara Grossman said: “The Primary Source can continue to print what it chooses, but it should not have the shelter of anonymity from which to launch hurtful attacks.”

Dean Reitman disagrees. “The difficult part about the CSL decision and why I was beginning to see it as censorship was that the byline requirement was imposed on only one publication,” he said. “If you do it with all publications then you’re saying we have a standard at the University. If you do it to just one organization and not the others, then it’s a punishment as opposed to a set principle.”

Dean Reitman said that, in January, the president and other administrators thought it was a “good idea” to apply a byline requirement to all organizations, a legislated policy decision as opposed to a punishment. “But does it still create an environment that is a chill one for writing?” Dean Reitman said. “You could debate that forever. And how do you enforce it?” The administration dropped the idea.

National civil rights organizations also supported Dean Glaser’s decision. “By issuing this decision, Tufts University is saying that its students are not strong enough to live with freedom,” Foundation for Individual Rights in Education president Greg Lukianoff said in a May statement. “Tufts knows that the proper cure for speech one dislikes is more speech — but it has instead elected to meet controversial speech with repression.”

“Despite readers’ curiosity and the public’s interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose his or her true identity,” wrote Sarah Wunsch, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts (ACLUM) in a letter to the Tufts administration. “The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one’s privacy as possible. An author’s decision to remain anonymous…is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.”

Dean Glaser’s reaffirmation of the right of student expression was rare for the administration of a private university, according to an interview with David Hudson of the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University published in the Boston Globe on August 28. Private universities are not held to the freedom of expression standards that are in place at public schools or government.

“I found that the byline requirement was uneasy with me because it did not make sense,” said David Dennis (A’07), an African American student who brought the complaint against the Source regarding the carol. “The understanding that it would spread to other organizations didn’t make sense. I supported Dean Glaser’s decision to overturn the byline requirement because it shouldn’t have been there in the first place.”

Dean Glaser agrees. “The CSL issued their opinion about the behavior of the Primary Source and, in my view, without the penalty that is all that is: an opinion,” he said. “I couldn’t go back and say, ‘You can’t have that opinion.’ That’s like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.”

He continued: “I don’t feel like that opinion was an infringement on the freedom of expression. In fact I believe the freedom of expression that allows them to say that. It’s their voice, the voice of a student-faculty committee.”

Mr. Dennis has a different view. “Dean Glaser ignores the real issue. He has just returned everything to the status quo — students still fund a racist organization. Tufts University has always had problems with the Primary Source with this specific issue, and I tried to end it like I’m sure many before me have tried, and it just keeps going.”

Although Dean Glaser overturned the substantive part of the decision, Matthew Schuster is worried that the freedom of expression is still in danger. Mr. Schuster is the current editor in chief of the Source. He was the campus editor when the carol was published, and he said that it was his idea to “draw attention to the issue of affirmative action.” With the Islam special section, he was the editor-in-chief.

“I certainly wish he had overturned the dangerous precedent of labeling dissenting speech as harassment,” he told the Observer. “I believe that harassment is a very serious crime, but what Tufts University did with the ruling is they found us guilty of harassment, but they lifted the punishment. They acknowledged that we were not guilty enough to have a punishment, but we were guilty enough to be labeled with harassment. Tufts University is making a mockery out of the very serious crime of harassment.”

Betrayed by the Administration?

At least one of the students responsible for the case against the Primary Source feels betrayed by the administration in the aftermath of the decisions.

When Muslim Student Association (MSA) president Shirwac Mohamed found out about the Islamic special section, he fielded several complaints from MSA members. “I tried to contact the Primary Source and they wouldn’t get back to me, so we went to the University.” School officials who Mr. Mohamed would not name told him that a case was ongoing against the Primary Source. “They wanted us to join the case, that was the best way to get any reaction from the Primary Source. We tried the hearing so we could have some dialogue because they would not talk to us. When the hearings began we started asking things we wanted to ask them about.”

Goals changed quickly. “Bylines weren’t something that we went in for and asked for in the first place,” he said. “Afterwards when the CSL made the decision we thought it was a good decision, but what we really wanted was dialogue with the Primary Source.”

“We joined this case because the University officials told us it was the best way to have dialogue,” he said. “We were one of the defendants, but it seems like afterwards, people blame us for infringing on students’ freedom of speech. I think the administration is looking for a scapegoat. I feel betrayed by the administration.” He said that neither he nor the MSA particularly care about the byline requirement now.

Dean Reitman said that he had a meeting with Mr. Mohamed to outline the process of filing a complaint, but did not specifically advise him to file a complaint, but just to do what he thought was right for the MSA.

The Money Question

Mr. Schuster is somewhat nervous that the student government might decide to cut some of the funding provided by the student activities fee, about 95 percent of their budget. But, he said, it is unlikely. “I don’t know what the Senate will do about the funding, but I doubt they’d cut any, because it would fly in the face of Bacow’s supposed new commitment to freedom of expression,” he said.

The Tufts Community Union (TCU) Treasurer, Evan Dreifuss, is unsure of the Source’s funding future. “Because the CSL decision was reached over the summer, the Senate has not had any time to discuss this matter as a body,” he said.

According to Mr. Dreifuss, the CSL recommends a change in Senate funding policy. “When [we] make funding decisions, we typically concentrate on financial responsibility and how much an event or publication brings to campus. In the past, we have not considered things like the content of magazines.”

“Going forward, we will definitely keep the CSL decision in mind,” he said. “Now that it is said and done, it is important to continue to be proactive, but if behavior is something the student body or the Senate feels should be more heavily weighted when considering funding, we will look to adjust policy accordingly.”

Mr. Dennis still disagrees that student money should go to an organization that is so divisive. “I argued at the hearing that the Primary Source has the ability to publish and that’s fine, but we students don’t have to fund them,” he said. “My argument was that de-funding an organization is not censorship, to decide to stop funding an organization is a lot different than saying, ‘You can’t say that.’”

He continued: “The administration is saying that students must support a $20,000 venue that is spread to every building on campus. The Source effectively publishes hate speech, and they are deciding to fund it with $20,000. The administration has never responded to that argument.” Mr. Dennis would support a decision by the TCUJ to deny recognition of the Source, or a decision from the Senate to revoke funding.

The CSL: Inconsequential?

If Dean Glaser took out the teeth of the CSL’s decision, does it still mean anything? Mr. Schuster believes that Dean Glaser did not go far enough in his ruling, and is still troubled by the CSL decision. He said that Dean Glaser took a “good small step in the right direction, but I’m still troubled by the fact that Glaser and Tufts University upheld the initial harassment ruling, although they tried to push that under the rug after media from across the country criticized Tufts University for taking steps to censor its own students.”

Mr. Lukianoff agrees. “It’s a shame because Bacow can articulate with some eloquence the ideals of the First Amendment,” he said. “This is a step in the right direction, but they didn’t undo their most troubling ruling,” he told the Boston Globe.

Prof. Orians believes that the CSL decision still has substance—and that it is a good thing. “The implications of his decision to overturn the byline provision is something that the CSL will have to consider when we convene this semester,” he said. “I don’t believe, however, that [Dean Glaser’s] decision—which only focused on the byline provision—removed the substance of our ruling.”

Mr. Schuster holds an alternative opinion. With regards to the president, he said, “I was much less impressed. All he was doing was continuing his McCarthyist fear tactics of intimidating the students who express views that dissent from the mainstream.”

“What the administration should be doing is fostering an open atmosphere where people can feel free to express unpopular voices,” he said. “But by sending out community-wide emails, attacking students who don’t ascribe to the popular views on campus, they’re doing just the opposite. They’re discouraging students from voicing their opinions and they’re intimidating students.”

“President Bacow has gone into attack mode and made malicious, nefarious assumptions about the Source’s intentions,” he said.

Opponents United

The Primary Source and the MSA have collaborated on at least one program, with the promise of more in the future.

“I believe our level of dialogue with the Source could get better, but it is a start,” said Mr. Mohamed. For instance, the MSA invited Source members to iftars, the holy meal that breaks the fast of Ramadan, held this month. “They actually responded and said they would love to come, which is a huge leap from not getting a response at all,” said Mr. Mohamed. “We have made some progress.”

In addition, the MSA and a professor of child development collaborated on an article about lessons from the prophet Muhammad in the August 29, 2007 edition of the Source.

“If the Primary Source is going to print something that is this controversial they should at least try to make sure what they are printing is true,” said Mr. Mohamed. He sees the carol as out of the context of cogent debate.

“They should at least make sure that whatever they are printing is clear and there is no ambiguity about what they are trying to say,” he said. Nowhere in the carol do they talk about affirmative action. When you write something that says black students get D’s, F’s, and G’s, and you say nothing about it before or after, then people are going to think you are racist.”

Going Forward

If the administration will not directly punish the Source, then how do outraged students respond to publications they find disagreeable? The answer, say many top officials, is to respond to offensive speech with more speech.

The Source is struggling to tread water in what many see as a sea of liberalism at Tufts. “After going through the seven-hour circus of a hearing in which Barbara Grossman…flagrantly disregarded the rule of law and due process, we honestly weren’t surprised at all by the CSL’s verdict,” he said. “It was quite clear from the moment we got there that the CSL had already made up its mind about what they believed.”

“The Primary Source since the beginning has advocated unpopular beliefs in an intellectually stifled campus of liberal academia that reportedly values open discussion,” he said. “If you don’t subscribe to the politically correct agenda that the administration is trying to shove down your throat, they label you as racist, homophobic, and bigoted and dismiss you.”

Mr. Schuster says that he does not anticipate the Source changing soon. “We’re going to continue to target issues that are of importance to college students,” he said. “Sometimes a risk of presenting these divisive issues is that people will get offended, and that’s a risk that we’re willing to take.”

Administrators criticized the Source and provided suggestions to students offended by the publication. They also encourage feedback regarding Dean Glaser’s appeal, which was decided in May but not released until August so the community would not feel like the administration was trying to stifle debate.

“I’m grateful that the response in the community was so strong and clear that it gave us a way of talking about diversity with the next class,” said Lee Coffin, Admissions Dean. “When the prospective students came to campus in April, there was something to say about how we responded to the Primary Source and how the place got stronger as a result. I saw an institutional recommitment to diversity.”

“There is a usefulness in having a broad range of voices on this campus, but I think the Primary Source takes itself out of that conversation by using the features sections as a way to get people to pay attention,” said Dean Reitman. “I think the Source’s perspective is taken out of the conversation because there is so much distraction by debates about freedom of expression every time they write something that we never get to talk about the issues. I think they’re hurting their own purpose in a lot of ways.”

Other top administrators agree. “People speaking strongly and clearly in response to offensive speech…was far more powerful than any decision of a student-faculty committee,” wrote President Bacow. “It was through our collective voice that we affirmed our community values.”

“What I think frustrates people is that they want a punishment,” said Dean Glaser, jabbing his hand at the air. “But I think the University responded pretty vigorously and forcefully last winter when this first happened. Student answered the obnoxious, offensive speech in the Primary Source with…rallies, denunciations, and letters. That was a great response that we were very proud of.”

He continued: “[President Bacow] was not happy that the CSL heard the case in the first place and certainly its outcome. I dealt with the outcome, but I think expects that students, faculty, and administrators to participate in response to…something obnoxious, mean-spirited, foolish, and wrong.”