Page 2
University Daily Kansan Tuesday, Feb. 16, 1965
Editorial Raises Ethical Problems
★ ★ ★ ★
Student Press Issue Posed By Editorial
Action has been taken by the School of Journalism faculty to discipline a student for an editorial which was published in the Jan. 21 issue of the University Daily Kansan.
Rick Mabbutt, Shoshone, Idaho, senior and last semester's editorial editor, wrote an editorial headed "Your Right—A Responsible Kansan." In it he criticized Kansan executives for news policies which he did not agree with.
MABBUTT HAS BEEN PLACED on disciplinary probation which provides that he lose his $125-a-semester scholarship, be barred from the Kansan newsroom, and be prohibited from holding a position on the newspaper. Mabbutt transferred from the journalism school to the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences between semesters, so he would have lost his scholarship regardless.
But Mabbutt, who has said he earns almost all of his college expenses, also faces the possibility of losing his $60-a-month job as residence hall counselor at Joseph R. Pearson if he fails to win in his appeal to the University Disciplinary Committee.
THE ACTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN have been well publicized in several newspapers within the area, including the Kansas City Star, the Topeka Daily Capital, the Wichita Eagle, and the Lawrence Journal-World. But the sequence of events which led to the journalism faculty's decision has not been told.
DEAN MARVIN CALLED A FACULTY MEETING to discuss what action should be taken. At its first meeting, the faculty agreed that the incident was not a matter for them to consider. The general sentiment was that any action by the journalism faculty would be construed as a retaliatory measure against a student. Since the editorial was by a student on the student newspaper, the faculty referred the case to the University Disciplinary Committee.
After Mabbutt's editorial was published, considerable pressure was applied on Dean Burton W. Marvin to take some action against Mabbutt. This pressure came from within the faculty, within the University and outside of the University.
The matter was not considered by the entire University Disciplinary Committee, but was taken up by Laurence C. Woodruff, dean of students; Donald K. Alderson, dean of men, and James R. Surface, vice chancellor and dean of faculties. Dean Woodruff referred to the incident as an "academic matter" to be handled in the school involved.
SO THE BUCK WAS PASSED BACK to the journalism faculty which was under considerable pressure to take some disciplinary action.
The reasons given by the journalism faculty for its action is that Mabbutt published "a libelous statement, ignored journalistic ethics and disregarded the constitution of the newspaper which specifies that proposed controversial editorials be submitted to an editorial committee before publication."
WHETHER OR NOT THESE CHARGES are valid is debatable. But the real issue which transcends all others is how far a "student newspaper" can go in criticizing the University. Although this particular editorial was not critical of the administration or "Strong Hall," it raises the question of the relationship of the student newspaper to the University. It boils down not to a matter of "freedom of the press," but to "freedom of the student press."
The University is a state-supported institution. Ultimately, the student press, in this case the University Daily Kansan, exists by the grace of the chancellor, the board of regents, and the state legislature; but this "toleration" seems to end abruptly if the administration feels it is necessary to end it.
WHETHER OR NOT THE "STUDENT PRESS" should function in this kind of atmosphere is debatable. Students will say we should have complete and unqualified "freedom of the press." But this could create problems for students as well as administrators. On the other hand, the subtle controls of the administration over the student press put the student editor in an uncomfortable position. He has "appreciable freedom" to comment and criticize, but how does he know when this is exhausted?
Garv Noland
When students face the possibility of discipline for speaking too frankly, it can only serve to intimidate them from publishing anything which could be construed as overstepping the line of responsibility as interpreted by the administration.
THIS WRITER DOES NOT CONDONE Mabbutt's editorial or the way in which it was published. Neither do I deny the right of the journalism faculty or the administration to discipline a student. However, in Mabbutt's case, the vaguely defined reasons for the punishment, the punishment itself, and the purpose of the punishment have not been adequately justified.
Editor's Note: The editorials on this page reflect divergent views on the recent disciplinary action imposed on Rick Mabbott, Shoshone, Idaho, senior, for an editorial which he published in the Daily Kansan last semester.
The column below is an excerpt taken from an article in the last issue of Quill by Dario Politella, assistant professor of journalism at Ball State Teachers College, Muncie, Ind. The article was headed "Freedom of the Student Press in America is a state of mind."
From Quill
(Official magazine of Sigma Delta Chi, professional journalistic society.)
Administrators' Philosophies
A survey of top administrators in a sampling of colleges in Indiana has indicated that although they tried to commit themselves to guardianship of the stereotype of press freedom on their campuses, many administrators could not quite make it. In depth interviews, they often tempered their statements of philosophy of press freedom on their campuses to which their administrations subscribed.
The institution expects the students to meet their responsibilities in exercising responsible journalism, recognizing at all times the institution's viewpoint...
There must be freedom with responsibility; and expert advice from qualified faculty personnel must be available. . .
... the administration seeks to direct the choice of the right people and keep information before them so there is no need of censure.
We appreciate the need for freedom of student expression and we appreciate the fact that publications provide good training for the profession. But, under the circumstances, we must exercise close faculty guidance.
Here, again, a contribution to confusion. The administrators had indicated that under their terms, freedom of the press exists on their campus.
What Editors Sav
In expressing themselves on their concepts of press freedom, the student editors on the Indiana campuses were equally idealistic:
To be able to print or picture events without any great deal of restriction.
Absence of "outside" control (outsiders being those other than student staffers, adviser and publications committee).
Freedom to publish what the students are feeling and thinking, and the freedom to put in anything that needs to be said as long as it does not harm or infringe upon the rights of somebody else.
To print what you see fit, for the betterment of the college, without overstepping bounds.
Obviously, both advisers and editors hedged to make their definitions of press freedom fit the conditions under which they operate.
No one controls what we print but we ourselves.
To print anything without being censored as long as it is true and complete.
But some were wistful;
Editor being able to print what he wants to print.
The right to print the truth, regardless of the consequences.
111 Flint Hall
Dailij Hansan
University of Kansas student newspaper
UNIVERSITY 4-3646, newsroom
UNIVERSITY 4-3198, business office
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904.
University, June 16, 1912
Minnesota State University,
Associated Collegiate Press.
Represented by National Advertising Service,
18 East 50 St. New York 22, N.Y.
News service; United Press Interna-
tional; Hoboken Semester or $5 a year. Published in
Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University year except Saturdays and Sundays. University holidays
extend through September. Class postage paid at Lawrence, Kanser.
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Leta Roth and Gary
The Editorial Editor
Noland Co-Editorial Editors
Comment Provoked By Faculty Action
There has been much discussion, pro and con, concerning the School of Journalism faculty's punishment of Rick Mabbutt for an editorial, "Your Right—A Responsible Kansan," which appeared in the Kansan recently. Mr. Mabbutt was placed on disciplinary probation for what the faculty decided was criminal and civil libel, for unethical and unprofessional journalistic practice, and for violation of the constitution of the newspaper.
Whether the particular punishment of disciplinary probation was the correct measure to be taken is of no concern in this editorial. Neither will the question of whether it was libel or not be discussed. I am no expert and make no pretense to discuss the legal aspects of the wording. That is for a lawyer to decide.
What I am concerned with is the unethical practice the writer employed in writing and publishing the editorial. This unethical practice revolved around the fact that the editorial was written with no consultation with the persons most directly involved, Miss Whitaker or Roy Miller, in this particular instance.
As would seem logical, journalistic ethics demand that the person involved in a situation be contacted before the story or the editorial is written. This is necessary if the story or the editorial is to have any validity. Before the editorial was published, it was shrouded in almost melodramatic secrecy. According to the constitution of the newspaper, the editorial editor is supposed to submit controversial editorials to the editorial board of the Kansan Board, the governing body of the Kansan. This board does not serve to prevent the editorial from being published, but rather to serve as a forum to discuss the issue and its implications.
THIS WAS NOT DONE. Since the editorial page of any newspaper is supposed to articulate and clarify the editorial stand of the entire newspaper, this particular editorial violated the purpose of the editorial page, since it did not stand for the official position of the University Daily Kansan. It cannot be denied that some persons involved in the Kansan feel as Mabbutt does, but it is hardly the official opinion.
The above points illustrate some of the reasons that the faculty felt it necessary to impose a punishment on Rick Mabbutt. Since the Kansan, in part, is a student laboratory for the journalism students, the faculty does have a right to impose a punishment on one of the students.
The main point of controversy seems to be whether or not the faculty should have imposed such a punishment on a student when it involved the freedom to publish. It must be said that the freedom of the press, which many seem to think is being violated, carries a tremendous responsibility with the privilege. The faculty felt that this responsibility had been disregarded and thus, deserved a punishment. The question is now, should he have been disciplined by the faculty?
In many professions, such as law, medicine and engineering, a breach of the code of the profession results in a punishment much more severe than the one Mr. Mabbutt incurred. The journalism profession, however, is caught between two highly idealistic views, freedom of the press and license.
And yet, if a newspaperman could be banned from the profession for any reason short of high treason, it is called censorship. The problem is obvious. In a commercial newspaper business, a reporter or an editor would be fired from the newspaper, in all probability, for any sort of flagrant breach of ethics. And yet, in a student journalist's case, censorship and right of free speech are flung at the nasty people who happen to believe he was wrong and should be punished.
AS IT IS INTERPRETED, freedom of the press also includes the freedom to publish a bad newspaper.
If anyone has the right, indeed the obligation, to reprimand a student who, in their opinion, has violated the rules of good journalism, it is the faculty of the journalism school.
As Mr. Mabbutt pointed out so effectively, the campus deserves a responsible campus newspaper. Behind a responsible campus newspaper are responsible faculty members who, in a university situation, have the right to judge a student's capabilities and offenses and act upon them. The journalism faculty cannot be denied the right to punish a student. For the campus readers also deserve a responsible editorial page, an idea which the faculty felt had been violated.
— Leta Roth