Opinion
Kansan
Published daily since 1912
4A
Lindsey Henry, Editor Andrea Albright, Managing editor Tom Eblen, General manager, news adviser
Sarah Scherviwinski, Business manager Brian Pagel, Retail sales manager Dan Simon, Sales and marketing adviser Justin Knupp, Technology coordinator
Wednesday, December 3, 1997
Andrew Salger / KANSAN
Feedback
'Kansan' editor receives support from readers
As parents of a KU senior, we are appalled at the "Kansan" Advisory Board's recent兴iting of Spencer Duncan as the editor.
Double entendre headlines in the student paper seems to be a rather lame premise for firing the editor.
Firing Mr. Duncan, even though there had been no earlier communication between the board and him regarding these issues, reflects poorly upon the management practices of the University and likely violates University personnel procedures.
The precipitous removal of Mr. Duncan, with only eight remaining issues in his term as editor, because of alleged fears of action that he might take is rageous. It is the punishment of a person in anticipation that he might do something inappropriate in the future. Quite a concept for an honored academic institution to teach its students.
For a school that claims to be a high quality source of education and training for aspiring professional journalists, this action sends a chilling message to present and future members of the "Kansan" staff: toe the line or be prepared to feel the institutional wrath of the University.
Dennis and Margo Murphey
Cincinnati, Ohio
I would like to offer my support for Spencer Duncan. I believe he performed well in a very tough situation as the editor of one of the best college newspapers in the nation. The actions of the "Kansan" board are extreme in the circumstances of the situation. I would like to know why the board did not apparently even consider a simple reprimand in regard to what the board calls "graphic material." As a member of the KU community, I cannot help but to be concerned with the extreme action of the board.
Hayden Colleen Murphey Lawrence senior
Lawrence senior
The last time I wrote to the "Kansan was the first time I had ever written to any paper. It was in response to letters
in the Feedback column. The emotions and viewpoints pouring out of that column caused me to share my own opinion.
The outcries and whines that caused me to get involved and have my say were in response to headlines, articles and captions appearing in the "Kansan." I think that's great. That's what a paper should do—get people to think, make decisions, share viewpoints, involve the whole community. That's what controversy does and that's what the "Kansan" has done for me this semester.
If firing the editor responsible for this is going to put an end to controversial headlines, articles, captions — it's the end of a good paper.
Christine Barb
KU graduate and employee at the adminis-
trative office at the Kansas Union
I have found it necessary to respond to the firing of the "Kansan" editor, Spencer Duncan. It is alarming to me as a student of this University that an action this severe and harsh would be taken for such vague and trivial reasons. Not only have I not been offended by any of the published articles, I have found the paper to be quite excellent. I have as much respect for the "Kansan" and the journalists who produce it today as I did when I first arrived at the University.
However, I am dismayed that any University would engage in such a blatant act of censorship. This is a place of learning, not a place where ideas and free thoughts are repressed. The creative license given to the editor of a paper like the "Kansan" should not be restricted. Once the board is allowed to fire an editor because he chose to express his ideas, we are all in danger.
Keith Henderson Topeka sophomore
Congratulations to the "Kansan" board for teaching Spencer Duncan a valuable lesson: The "Kansan" isn't supposed to be a creative, student geared paper — instead it's merely a tool for the University's public relations department. Because Duncan and his
staff chose to take the paper in a more creative and less rigid and traditional direction this semester, the board did what it had to do to protect the University and its students — it fired Duncan.
Wrong, what the board actually did was promote a personal and vindictive agenda in removing Spencer as the editor. In the process it also trampled on professional ethics and Spencer's rights as both an employee and student of the University. Among the problems surrounding his removal is the fact that the board failed to approach Duncan, previous to the day he was removed, concerning the identified problems that caused his removal. Firing Spencer is a very unprofessional way of handling the correction of these problems (assuming these are the real reasons for his dismissal).
Spencer's firing also raises some concern about apparent violations of his student rights and violations of University policies. Specifically, Spencer had the right as an employee of the University to be informed of grievances against him in writing, which never occurred. This policy exists to prevent arbitrary actions against students and employees, such as this exact action by the Board.
Clearly the board's actions were unjustified and inappropriate. So what can be done? Well if it is found that this action was a violation of Spencer's student rights, the Student Senate has the option of withdrawing its funding of the "Kansan." Although I personally don't want this to happen, I do think the Senate has a responsibility to use this leverage to demand that the Board reinstate Spencer as editor for the remainder of the semester. Senate must protect our rights as members of this student body and this situation clearly demands immediate intervention on their part. The semester is coming to an end and time is running out to rectify the situation, so I (as do a majority of students) call for Spencer Duncan's immediate reinstatement as editor.
Bill Hill
Topeka senior and Duncan's roommate
Kansan staff
Bradley Brooks ... Editorial
Jason Strait ... Editorial
Jodie Chester ... News
Jen Smith ... News
Adam Darby ... News
Charity Jeffries ... Online
Kristie Blasi ... Sports
Tommy Gallagher ... Associate Sports
Dave Morantz ... Campus
Eric Weslander ... Campus
Ashleigh Roberts ... Features
Steve Puppe ... Photo
Bryan Volk ... Design, graphics
Mitch Lucas ... Illustrations
Mark McMaster ... Wire
Ann Marchand ... Special sections
Lachelle Rhoades ... News clerk
News editors
Matt Fisher ... Assistant retail
Michael Soifer ... Campus
Colleen Eager ... Regional
Anthony Migliazzo ... National
Jeff Auslander ... Marketing
Chris Haghirian ... Internet
Brian LeFevre ... Production
Jen Wallace ... Production
Dustin Skidgel ... Promotions
Tyler Cook ... Creative
Annette Hoover ... Public relations
Rachel O'Neill ... Classified
Jaime Mann ... Assistant classified
Marc Harrell ... Senior account executive
Scott Swedund ... Senior account executive
Advertising managers
Breadon your mind:
"The public ... demands certainties ... But there are no certainties."
How to submit letters and guest columns
H. L. Mencken
Letters: Should be double-spaced typed and fewer than 200 words. Letters must include the author's signature, name, address and telephone number plus class and home-town if a University student. Faculty or staff must identify their positions.
Guest columns: Should be double-spaced typed with fewer than 700 words. The writer must be willing to be photographed for the column to run.
All letters and guest columns should be submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Staufer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Bradley Brooks (brooks@kansan.com) or Jason Strait (jstrait@kansan.com) at 864-4810. If you have general questions or comments, e-mail the page staff (opinion@kansan.com) or call 864-4810.
Examining
Firing of 'Kansan' editor leaves many questions
Removing Duncan wrong we are left to decipher the lesson to be learned.
W hy did this happen and who is going to benefit from this decision?
These are the questions in our news.
These are the questions in our newsroom following the Nov. 24 firing of Spencer Duncan, our editor.
It is a question asked after a decision by the "Kansan" Advisory Board — made up of three journalism professors, the student editor, student business manager and one member of Student Senate, who was not in attendance at the meeting. Unfortunately, it is also a question based on the
Bradley Brooks brooks@kansan.com
little information available about this firing — and for a group of student journalists in the business of passing on information, this is a frustrating time.
The reasons for Duncan's firing were vague and have left room for newspaper staffers and the public to speculate. And speculation about what actually caused the board to take this action can do nothing but harm the "Kansan." Unfortunately, it doesn't look like we'll get much more
information from the board. Duncan's father, Robert E. Duncan, an attorney in Topeka, sent a letter to board members pointing out alleged illegalities in the board's action and wrote "I suggest that your board make no more statements regarding Spencer Duncan."
This legal clamp is essentially a gag order for the board and leaves me in the tough situation of only having one side of the story.
With little exception, there is no outrage in the newsroom regarding this situation. No one, to my knowledge, thinks the board made the right decision, but we're not threatening a walkout or a picket line.
So we are left to examine what message this action was meant to send and how it will be interpreted by those of us who staff this newspaper.
Personally, I don't know if much is going to change — the lack of outrage is an indicator of this. There is certainly the danger that future editors will feel the pressure to print the "right thing" — whatever that might be. But I hope that won't happen. I hope that if it does, the other members of the "Kansan" staff demand an editor who doesn't serve as a puppet to a quality-control board. That is an outcome that no one in this newsroom wants, and I really think no one on the board wants either.
Ideally, the "Kansan" is going to continue to cover the events on this campus in whatever manner it sees fit. It now may be a little smarter about its work, but it should never be more timid about its work. If the latter happens, then a great disservice will be done to the students and to the ideas of free speech.
Did Spencer deserve to be fired? He would have had he been at a professional newspaper with a general public audience. But this is not a professional newspaper and you are not a general audience. This is a paper largely written for people between the ages of 18 and 22. It is up to you to decide if "Blow me," or "Nice melons" is worthy of one losing their job.
Personally, I was embarrassed on the days these types of things appeared in the "Kansan." I and Jason Strait, the other editorial page editor, read every angry letter regarding the offensive material, and we often agreed with what our readers were complaining about.
But the board's action was the wrong one to take.
Spencer has said that he was never warned by the board that they were this upset with his performance. I'm sure Spencer knew that some of his decisions were not that well thought out — we receive a daily critique from our general manager, and staffers are not hesitant to share opinions of their newspaper's performance. I know that I told him on occasion when I didn't like something that appeared in the paper.
How bad will Spencer's firing hurt him? He is left with one hell of a mark against him that could hinder him professionally. I really don't know what lesson he can take away from this as he thinks he is not in the wrong. And, with the speed and severity of the board's action, Spencer was not given much of a chance to learn from his mistakes.
Are the staffers on the "Kansas" benefitted from this? No. We are aware that we are held responsible for our work but now there is the added pressure of maintaining the board's guidelines — which are not explicitly known by any one but the board.
Are you, the reader, benefitted? If you had a beef with Spencer you're probably thinking, "I told you so," but you are in no way benefitted. Mistakes will always be a part of this paper and someone is always going to be offended. That is the manner of a newspaper. Maybe the offenses won't be as blatant, but there will be offenses nonetheless. Where will the line be drawn between an offense for which one can be fired and one that is justified?
There is simply no direct benefit from this action. It was made too quickly, too late in the semester, by too few people and has not been fully explained. What myself, my colleagues, and you as a reader who deserves news with no restraint must decide is what to learn from this.
That is, after all, what college is supposed to be about.
Brooks is a Hill City senior in journalism and an editorial page editor.
Newspaper should continually ask itself, 'Is this good enough?'
As you may have heard, Spencer Duncan lost his job last week as editor of the "Knoxon" Newsweek journal.
can lost his job last week as editor of the "Kansan." Newspeople try not to make news, just gather and present it. But every once in a while, we find ourselves the subject of the story. This was certainly the case last week: I made page two after breaking my neck living through a car accident, but my friend and colleague upstaged me
Andy
Obermueller
andy@kanaa.com
by getting fired as editor of the "Kansan," news of which ran page one in the "Kansan" and also appeared in local news media.
just letting him complete his term.
The "Kansan" Advisory Board decided Duncan's performance as editor was unacceptable and that leaving him in his position, even for only eight issues, would harm the "Kansan" more than
The message they sent to Duncan was and is simple: Not good enough.
This was not the first time Duncan had been taken to task for his performance. After "inappropriate" inclusions in the "Kansan" — the infamous "Nice melons" photo kicker and "Blow Me" headline — coupled by concerns about management style, the board had enough.
Whether it is the board's job to serve as the "Kansan" quality-control police is up to interpretation.
But what is not debatable is the "Kansan" staff does its best to put out a good paper, and it does that most days. Some days are better than others, but we aren't laying pipe here, folks, and in the creative process, quality fluctuates. You have to take the highs with the lows to determine overall quality: bad headlines make neither a bad paper nor a bad editor, they only bring up or bring down the overall picture.
What everyone seems shocked about is that out of the blue, the board swooped down and held Duncan to a seemingly impossible standard. They simply said, "Not good enough" and kicked him out of his job, judging him purely subjectively.
But the board's action should have surprised no one: just because we think we can't be fired doesn't mean we can't be. Just because we think no one is watching doesn't mean that no one is. When we take responsibility, we are held accountable. Our actions have repercussions and those must not be ignored.
We should always behave as though tomorrow we will be held against an impossible standard. It's the best way to push yourself to perform at your highest possible level. Does it seem unfair when your good friend gets the shaft? Of course. But to learn from adversity is to triumph, and triumphing over this situation means that every staff member of the "Kansan" will always ask, "Is this good enough?" and "How can I make it better?"
It may seem like a tough job to have "Could I defend this headline against the 'Kansan' board?" looming over you, but that is the reality of the responsibility the editors take. It doesn't mean you should be stifled, it means you have to be attentive and to invest in every little detail that you do.
My problem with the board's action is only its timing.
In newspapers and in life, you don't ask "Is it good enough?" at the end, you ask it continually during the process. At the end, there isn't anything you can do except regret your mistakes when you should have been correcting them and learning from them all along.
Metaphorically speaking, boards will swoop out of the blue sometimes, and that should remind us that what we do—and how we do it—matters. And losing an editorship is a small price to pay if Spencer can learn that truth, because few people ever do. The "Kansan," its staff, KU students and certainly Spencer Duncan, will all keep on going. But with a little luck, they'll pay more attention to how they are going and ask, "Is it good enough?"
And if anyone of them reaches a little higher because of this, then that's not a bad outcome.
Obermuller is an Liberal, Kan., senior in journalism.
.