University Cited for First Amendment Issues

Morgan State censured

Editor's Note: CMA's Adviser Advocate Chris Evans has compiled a list of links that provides media reaction to the story of Morgan State's Censure. CLICK HERE TO SEE EVANS' BLOG.

MEMPHIS — A national journalism organization has censured Morgan State University in Baltimore, Md., for its firing of the student media adviser at the school and its attempts to deny students their First Amendment rights.

The board of directors of College Media Advisers voted the censure following a careful investigation by CMA into the June 30, 2009, firing of student media adviser Denise Brown.

The letter of censure, sent to Morgan State President Earl S. Richardson, raises concerns about the way the university handled Brown’s case. In addition, CMA is concerned that the present academic and student affairs environments are not conducive to healthy journalism and student media programs at Morgan State.

Specific concerns raised in the letter of censure include the following findings by CMA Adviser Advocate Christopher Evans

• Brown was removed from her position as adviser on June 30, 2009, as a result of her students exercising their civil and First Amendment rights by publishing a series of news stories and editorials that were critical of the university administration.
• University documents indicate that Morgan State officials first threatened not to renew Brown’s contract when she failed to produce the students for one-on-one conversations with administrators about stories and editorials that the students had written — works of journalism that contained criticism of the administration.
• Administrators indicated to Brown and others that they wanted to know the source(s) of the student journalists’ information.
• Other university documents indicate that Brown conveyed to administrators that students preferred to meet as a group, but she received no response to this suggestion. The administration’s next move on this matter was, months later, to let Brown know that her job was in jeopardy for not producing the students individually.
• Even if Brown could be held accountable for “failing” to produce these students, the administration’s motive — to question student journalists about their reporting and sources — is questionable. It seems that Morgan State officials are seeking to hold the adviser responsible for students’ writing and actions — both of which are protected by the First Amendment from interference by the adviser or other school officials.
• A close connection exists between the student articles that were critical of Morgan State administrator Toya Corbett and the removal of Brown as student media adviser. In an e-mail to Evans, Perry wrote: “However, 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.” This 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.
• Perry declined to engage in conversation about Brown’s case; he said in an e- mail dated July 6, 2009, that her dismissal is a personnel matter and noted that Brown had indicated legal action against Morgan State might be pending, and so he could not comment. Following the reply from Perry, Evans wrote a two-page letter to Morgan State President Earl Richardson in which he outlined concerns and offered to visit Morgan State as a CMA adviser advocate to help move this matter from confrontation to reconciliation. That letter, sent by e-mail to Perry and Richardson on July 9, 2009, has not been acknowledged.
• Natasha Lewis, an assistant coordinator of student activities who reports directly to Corbett, has replaced Brown. Interviews and documents have indicated that Lewis has education in public relations but no journalism training. Not only this lack of journalism training but, more importantly, her assumed allegiance to Corbett — the initial subject of the student journalists’ critical articles, has troublesome implications for the cause of an independent press at Morgan State.
• Students have reported that, since taking over as media adviser, Lewis has asked to review the content of the university yearbook before it goes to print. The students have rejected this attempt at prior review.
• Yearbook students, who are paid for their work, have also reported that their contracts, which were due for renewal on July 1, 2009 — one day after administrators allowed Brown’s contract to expire—have not been renewed. These yearbook students have been vocal supporters of Brown, and we believe that administrators have failed to renew the students’ contracts as a means of pressuring students into silence. The students, however, have instead chosen to cease work on the yearbook and report that, because of the university’s failure to renew their contracts, the yearbook will miss vital publication deadlines.
• CMA is interested in working with Morgan State officials on the following:
• The reappointment of Denise Brown to the position of student media adviser.
• The development and implementation of governing documents for student media that will allow students to practice journalism without prior review or post-publication challenges by administrators.
• The development and implementation of 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.The CMA Adviser Advocacy Program, established in 1998, is designed to help mediate issues that may arise when advisers are punished in the performance of their duties and while following CMA standards. Since inception of the program, the CMA board of directors has censured seven schools, five of which remain in effect. Letters of concern have been sent to two other schools.

CMA is a professional association of more than 750 members representing some 550 colleges and universities across the country. The organization establishes and promotes standards and practices for advising student media and supports member professionals who advise college newspapers, magazines, yearbooks, broadcast stations and other electronic student media.

Attached:

CMA letter to Dr. Earl S. Richardson, president of Morgan State University, dated July 23, 2009

For additional comments, contact the following:

• Mr. Christopher Evans, CMA Adviser Advocate, 802-656-2060 or christopher.evans@uvm.edu
• Ms. Kathy Lawrence, CMA Adviser Advocate Coordinator, 512-471-5084 or kathyL@mail.utexas.edu
• Dr. Kenneth L. Rosenauer, CMA President, 816-387-8213 or rosenauer@missouriwestern.edu

For additional background, go online to the following:

CMA censure policy at http://www.collegemedia.org/adviser_advocates. Excerpt from that policy:

5. Censure

If the Investigator determines upon the exhaustion of all reasonable attempts to resolve the dispute that the problematic administrative action stands and is in significant conflict with CMA’s established standards and practices for advising and the student press, then a report stating so will be provided to both the Committee Chair and CMA President. If each agree with the Investigator’s conclusions, the Committee Chair will bring to the CMA Board of Directors a proposal to censure the college or university involved. For the purposes of this document, censure is a formal resolution by the CMA national association that officially reprimands and condemns an institution as oppressive of students rights to free expression and hostile toward those professionals it employs to advise the student press. Censure requires CMA Board approval.

6. Consequences of Censure

The president or chancellor of institutions officially censured will receive a formal letter under CMA letterhead from the CMA President declaring the censure along with the reasoning for the action. The CMA President will notify the CMA membership of the censure, and call for members to write letters of concern to administrators, board members, and other individuals of influence at the censured institution. The CMA President will also notify the student press at the institution; the local commercial press in the institution’s city; the state press agencies in the institution’s state; the department of higher education or regulating agency in the institution’s state; the Chronicle of Higher Education; and other media outlets relevant to higher education.

7. Removal of Censure

CMA institutional censure continues until officially removed by action of the Board of Directors. The request for censure removal must come in writing from either a ranking administrator at the institution or from a CMA adviser at the institution and be directed to the CMA President. The request must either include, or be followed by, documentation supporting a resolution of concerns that led to the censure. Upon receipt of documentation, the CMA President will direct the Adviser Advocate Committee Chair to investigate the veracity of resolution claims. The Chair may elect to conduct this investigation or appoint a Committee member to do so. Upon completion of this follow-up investigation, a report will be submitted to the CMA President with a recommendation either for or against censure removal. The CMA Board will then take action on the recommendation. If Board action removes the censure, then the President will send letters declaring such to the institution's president or chancellor, and to as many agencies and media outlets originally notified of the censure as is reasonably possible.