Note: This editorial was written by three student leaders of University Media Board (UMB) organizations. They do not speak on behalf of their respective organizations or UMB as a whole but wish to highlight how the administration’s policies have affected their operations. This piece was written before the arrests of university students on Nov. 11.
Over the past year, Case Western Reserve University administration has fostered an environment that is both passively and actively hostile to voices of student expression and political dissent on campus.
The ways in which this attitude is reflected in University Policies are often subtle, but the consequences are no less significant. For example, in the new policies on tabling, posting and student organizations emailed to students on Nov. 4, the new social media policy has been expanded. Where the old policy reads, “student and campus organizations are permitted to post events through social media,” the updated policy allows “students and campus organizations” to “post through social media.”
Hidden in these two minor changes—“student and campus organizations” to “students and campus organizations” and the removal of “events” to simply “posts” on social media—lie more troubling patterns. Both serve to widen the purview of the posting policy and what the university entitles itself to restrict, monitor and remove according to its written word. Here, the change from organizations posting their events on campus to, in essence, all posts made by all individuals is flatly egregious. Further, the vacuous language in much of the remaining policies collectively reinforces what can only be described as an attempt to strong-arm student expression with disciplinary catch-alls.
The university has stated that “[t]hese policies do not affect the substance of the messages that can be conveyed” and “are intended to provide clarity and streamline procedures related to posting and communicating on our campus.” However, the ramifications of policy neither start nor end at the letter of how that policy is written. In light of both May’s encampment and the ongoing demonstrations on campus, it is difficult to read policies on organizational conduct and expression—particularly involving demonstrations, posters and the Spirit Wall—as anything but directly retaliatory against individual groups.
Regardless of either intention or enforcement, these policies and the time, manner and context in which they have been introduced communicate to all organizations on campus a hostility toward speech and expression not expressly approved by or in line with the university that is, in no uncertain terms, untenable.
The language of the university’s internal and external messaging is equally important. Through Undergraduate Student Government Resolution 31-15, the encampment in May and last week’s demonstration, President Eric Kaler and the broader administration’s responses have consistently characterized student leaders and protesters challenging the university’s stance on the conflict in Gaza as “antisemitic.”
In his statement addressed to the entire university, Kaler described “the foundation of [USG Resolution 31-15 as] profoundly anti-Israel and anti-Semitic” and asserted after it had passed that “a vote for this resolution is … an aggression toward the Jewish members of our community.” Through May’s encampment, Kaler frequently painted student protests as threatening, hateful and antisemitic in email updates to all of campus.
Regardless of one’s politics with respect to Israel and Gaza, the fact that the administration so consistently associates student dissent over Israel with antisemitism and hate speech sets an uncomfortable, if not outright dangerous, precedent for dialogue on campus, especially when reported on by outside publications. This mischaracterization, particularly to news organizations with a farther reach than even Kaler’s campus-wide emails, opens students voicing legitimate grievances to very real harm and reinforces disdain for student protest from the administration.
As college journalists, we serve to document student life, creating an archive of events as they happened and as they were felt. As a result, we are in an incredible position to be a part of the audience we serve, allowing us to create media that are honest and reflective of the voices on campus. With this privilege comes a unique vulnerability: As community members, we are subject to scrutiny by the people who know us and our content best. And as students, we are subject to the policies governing our campus. Every word we write, graphic we draw and video we film is supposed to be an opportunity to freely express ourselves—our convictions, grievances and desires—but that is hardly the reality.
The role of college media is to document local stories. From building constructions, demolitions or new curricula, our niche is capturing the stories that major media outlets cannot: those bound by the walls of a private university. In doing so, we seek not only to present the objective truth but also the subjective experience of students. Oftentimes, our desire to document events and students’ sentiments as they unfold has been misconstrued by administration as a lack of objectivity—and, by extension, a lack of journalistic integrity.
In truth, ethical journalism presents events as they happened and supports an open exchange of all viewpoints: the good, bad and the ugly. And on CWRU’s campus, while all viewpoints may exist, they do not always exist in equal measure. As such, it is our responsibility as college journalists to find a balance between fair journalism and accurate reporting. We do, and always will, value the power of objective journalism and the importance of having every side be heard. But we also recognize that we can provide more than a clinical account of events; we can eternalize moments in our history with student voices at the forefront—however partisan they may be.
Student expression in college media matters and deserves to be protected. With recent events, we have seen time and again the way small changes—unsuspecting changes—can have monumental effects on campus culture. From posting updates “to provide clarity” to correspondence from Kaler unfairly associating all pro-Palestine advocacy with antisemitism, the university’s language has threatened what it means to have freedom of expression and the ability to speak against administration without retribution. Even as student leaders, our work has been maligned by the administration for being ill-informed, biased and inflammatory, especially when university policies are in question.
As such, the hostile environment perpetuated by the administration over the past year has forced us to be constantly aware that every article we write and word we speak is being watched and assessed.
Even in writing this editorial, we have obsessively second-guessed what we are able to share, how the administration will take our words and the consequences that our honesty will have on the student organizations we represent. In fact, we have made the conscious decision to not involve the advisors or other members of our respective University Media Board organizations in the writing of this editorial for fear of them facing backlash.
Student journalists and broadcasters should not have to resort to engaging in self-censorship—this goes against the very idea of what it means to be a media representative at a university that claims to promote free speech and free expression. In painting all pro-Palestine advocacy as antisemitic and legitimate journalistic practice as unprincipled, the administration is actively harming the student body and promoting a culture of hostility.
While undoubtedly disheartening, these moments in our history are reminders that our coverage has strength and our words have power. Our freedom of expression is under attack, but that does not mean we should retreat. As journalists, authors, broadcasters and supporters of students’ right to freely express themselves, we will continue to report mercilessly, bringing “small policy changes” to the attention of our student body and the community. But that is only a part of the larger mission. We rely on your readership, viewership and voice to ensure our message is accurate and intentions are clear. Only as a collective do we have the ability to hold those in power accountable.
Together, we can create a future where freedoms are protected and our cries incite change, not punishment. Together, we can meet threats of censorship from administration with public attention. Together, we can create an honest record of life at CWRU—unsanitized and unforgiving—that reflects the real experiences of our community.