|
THIS WEEK IN UMASSD HISTORY
SMU promotion campaign
Original Article by James Cooney
March 30 1979
A SMU Administrative Coalition has undertaken a special three month program to increase public awareness of the role of the university in the community.
The program, commonly known in public relations circles as a “P.R. Blitz,” consists of a large amount of exposure through various forms of media in a concentrated time period.
The SMU “P.R. Blitz” consists of existing public service advertising on television and radio, alumni publications and local newspapers as well as the purchase of additional primetime television spots and the rental of billboards in the area.
The purpose of the program is two-fold according to Assistant to the President, Dan Aldrich, “We want to heighten the public awareness of the university at a time when many students are making the decision of where to go and also we want to stress the role of the university plays in community life at a time when the Governor has made his recommendation for our budget.”
The blitz, according to Aldrich, has been successful: “We are very pleased with the results. Many people have complimented us on the fine work done by the university design team on the billboards and we are confident that our commercials which aired in February and March during the NBA game of the Week and Newscope 6, as well as the ones due to air during the “good Morning America” and 7-8 p.m. slots will create quite a lot of awareness about SMU.”
“The billboards spread out over the local area (five in Taunton, seven in Dartmouth and New Bedford, and seven in greater Fall River),” continues Aldrich “stress the theme, ‘SMU is part of your life,’ a theme also stressed in the commercials.”
“The funding for these two projects” says Aldrich “came from the Presidents Club, the Alumni Association and the SMU Foundation. What we would like to do to really wrap this campaign up is put out some bumper stickers. I really feel that they are very effective. People read bumper stickers.”
The problem facing Aldrich with the stickers is funding. “When Jim Wileyn, Director of P.R. approached the Student Senate with the idea of paying for the stickers,” says Aldrich, “Somehow the notion got afoot that we were trying to ram something down their throats. They expressed concern about a lack of student involvement and didn’t seem very excited about the idea. Finally, they decided not to fund the stickers. We were only asking if they would LIKE to participate, not tell them that they had to.”
“If the Student Senate doesn’t wish to finance the bumper stickers, fine,” says Aldrich, “If they do, it would be great. Students have done bumper stickers before and shown a lot of interest in them in the past. We feel that the same interest might still be there. I didn’t ask students to help fund the other areas because they were already created internally and already funded. As it stands now I have no other means of funding these bumper stickers.”
A new image for SMU
Original article by Lynn Poyant
April 1, 1983
The Student Senate allocated $250 for bumper stickers with the message SMUving UP, but not before some the Senate members criticized the procedure by which they were created, “ I think it was a rush job,” said Julia Shaugnessy after Professor Riate Moniz, special assistant to the President requested $450 to help pay for the production cost. At their Monday night meeting the Senate allocated some of the money, but not all.
Senate members were upset because students weren’t involved in the planning of the bumper sticker because Moniz didn’t have a copy of it to show the Senate. “We paid for something we didn’t see.” said Joann Walsh. At least one Senate member didn’t have to see the bumper sticker to know he didn’t like it. “SMUving UP? I just don’t like it. It sounds like the Smurfs,” said John Camara, referring to the language of the popular cartoon.
But Moniz said it was important to get the bumper stickers out as soon as possible because the after effects of the Save SMU campaign are having an adverse effect on enrollment for next year. Although last year’s campaign was effective, she said it’s carrying over a negative meaning. “We need something upbeat. We definitely want them for Community Week,” which starts on April 23, she said. Moniz didn’t have a copy of the bumper stickers because the printer had it, she said, but she had shown it to students she had contact with through her classes.
Moniz said she’s working on a “complex proposal” that would cut down on the bureaucracy in trying to get different projects done. This would include setting up task forces for projects like the bumper stickers. “I think the Student Senate did an excellent job last year. I would like to see the task force for the bumper stickers comprised of student Senate members.” Last year the Student Senate Public Relations Committee made changes for the Save SMU bumper sticker which was designed by students.
Moniz will also request money from other campus organizations to share the $2200 production cost. The bumper sticker has a dark blue background, yellow letters, and a red exclamation point that’s shaped like the campanile. Moore and Slater Advertising Agency designed the bumper sticker free of charge.
Court ruling may affect college newspapers
Original article by Paul Remy
March 31 1988
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees its citizens freedom of speech. All of us can voice our thoughts, ideas, and political preferences without fear of being censored or thrown into jail, but in January 1988 the Supreme Court ruled that high school administrators could censor student newspapers in some instances. Some members of the Court would probably vote to apply the decision to state college and University newspapers, according to Dr. John Carroll, an authority in Public Law at Southeastern University (SMU), and thus the court decision could affect college newspapers in subtle ways.
Carroll said that the court interpreted student newspapers as part of the official curriculum and could thus be subject to influence and control by school administrators and faculty. Carroll added that by divorcing themselves from the official curriculum, college newspapers such as SMU’s Torch could reduce their vulnerability under the new ruling.
According to Sean McFadden, the assistant news editor of the Torch, “Personally, I feel it would be a violation of our most essential Constitutional rights, freedom of press.” He added, “A reporter’s responsibility is to present all facts, not just the pleasantries. I never want to contribute to the kind of restrictions that censorship creates.”
The controversy began in 1983 when student reporters from Hazlewood East High School in Missouri brought suit against their principal, Robert Reynolds, because they felt their First Amendment rights were violated after he deleted two articles from the student newspaper, the Spectrum. One story was about a student who became pregnant. Reynolds thought the article was too positive and glorified pregnancy. The girl who became pregnant stated, “This experience has made me a more responsible person. I feel that I am a woman.”
The second article dealt with parental divorce and its impact on teenagers. According to the girl in this article, her father was always out of town or playing cards with the guys. Since the father did not have the opportunity to tell his side of the story, the principal objected to the story and ordered it deleted.
The reporters from the Spectrum thought the courts would agree with them that Reynolds violated their freedom of expression. Instead the Supreme Court voted in the school’s favor because it recognized that high school students are not adults and that teachers and administrators have the responsibility to protect and disciple students to fulfill the education process. Acting as disciplinarians, teachers or administrators could censor student newspaper articles were poorly written or represented the school negatively, the court ruled.
Despite its clear impact on high school newspapers, however, SMU’s President John Brazil does not feel the decision applies at the college level.
President Brazil said, “it is my understanding that the Court decision affirming the authority of high school administrators or governing boards to control the content of student newspapers specifically excluded student newspapers at colleges and universities.”
According to Dr. Peter Owens, a journalism professor at SMU, the courts have traditionally recognized college students as adults. “If they weren’t college students, by choice, they might well be writing or editing for the private sector where they would be entitled to full protection of the constitution,” Owens stated.
Most high school newspapers are a clear part of the school curriculum. Students and teachers usually work together in the production of the school’s publication.
Frequently the teachers end up becoming the “Super editors who are ultimately responsible for the newspaper’s content,” said Owens.
College and university newspapers, on the other hand, can become independent from the school’s curriculum, noted Carroll. By avoiding contract learning or other course-related connections to the curriculum, student editors and writers should enjoy the same First Amendment rights as their counterparts at the New Bedford Standard Times, and The Providence Journal, and probably could not be censored by the college officials or would certainly be less vulnerable.
According to Owens, in order for college newspapers to be protected under the First Amendment they must conduct themselves as “first amendment forums. This means that students, faculty, and the university community be widely represented within articles, comments, and letters published by they paper, noted Owens. The paper then serves a special function that earns it constitutional protection even though it is funded through the university, student government, and by extension, the state itself. School officials have not been considered to be the “publishers” of state college newspapers, said Owens, provided that the editors fulfill their first amendment forum obligations and print a diversity of views and perspectives.
Owens feels that Torchure, the annual comic edition of the Torch is the biggest potential threat to that open forum status. “Torchure invariably violates the boundaries of good taste, frequently ridicules students, faculty, administrators, and various minority groups, and often is authored by a small, inside group who use the publication as a personal mouthpiece,” Owens said.
Torchure doesn’t represent a broad spectrum of student, faculty, and administration views at SMU, but those of only a small segment of writers, Owens says. By not being an open forum, Owens feels that the Torchure is vulnerable and could drag the Torch in trouble and foster demands that faculty or administrators exercise control over what appears in the paper. If it ever came to a court case, Owens said, “I’d hate to have to rest my case on the merits of Torchure.”
Despite the Torchure, the Torch usually is an open forum to all philosophies and is largely separate from SMU’s curriculum, Owens said. No faculty member or administrator has the right to censor the paper, he said, nor do any faculty or administrators exercise control over what appears in the paper each week. “This sometimes shows in the form of clumsy and not very skillful journalism,” Owens said, but “freedom of the press is always fraught with the risk, and all newspapers make mistakes,” he said.
The Hazelwood High School newspaper was financed by the school through public funding. School officials argued that the school was the actual official publisher and should have a say about whether or not stories should be published.
Some college officials have tried to make the same argument noted Owens. “During the sixties, in fact, a former president of Fitchburg State College yanked the funding of the college newspaper because he objected to its printing of obscenities by the editor. He argued that the college administration was the actual, legal publisher and had a right to determine the newspaper’s content,” Owens said.
However, Federal Judge T. Arthur Garrity ordered the school to restore the paper’s funding. Garrity ruled that the paper was a “First Amendment Forum” and that the school was not the publisher. Owens added, “IN the absences of the publisher, Garrity said , the editor became responsible for the newspapers financial and management affairs and would be answerable in the event the paper was sued for libel or invasion of privacy.”
Garrity also said in his ruling that a college can decide on a yearly basis whether or not to have a newspaper. However after deciding to fund the newspaper, school officials cannot cut off funding from the newspaper for a week or month if they object to stories printed in the paper, Owens said. They can’t sue funding as a censorship tool.
Owens and Professor Catherine Houser, a new English faculty member this year, are the Torch’s faculty advisors. During weekly meetings, the editors and advisors discuss ideas for future stories and review past issues for problems.
However, advisors do not have a right to censor, say whether or not articles should be printed, or how they should be written, said Owens. On occasion editors call one of the advisors for advice about specific articles prior to publication, but the editors have the final say if a story should be printed and how it should appear.
As with the Standard Times, and the Providence Journal, college publications such as the Torch and its writers can be sued for libel or invasion of privacy, Owens said. The publication and reporter are responsible to pay for the damages if they lose a law suit. The Torch has not been sued in its six years at SMU, but Owens added
The possibility is always there if the paper abuses the rights of people who become the objects of articles. However, privacy and libel actions come after publication and are not the same, Owens said, as censorship or prior restraining that control what is printed in the first place.
“There are times when articles have the potential of hurting someone on campus or are poorly reported,” noted news editor Sharon Arruda. “Such articles have to be checked for accuracy and sometimes are rewritten or rejected by the editor.”
“Last semester there were numerous reports about a rape which occurred on campus,” Arruda said. However, the Torch didn’t have any substantial evidence that the rape really happened. After further investigation, it was discovered that the story was a hoax and it wasn’t published, but this was entirely the decision of the editors.
Arruda feels the paper is largely free of bias and has been mostly accurate during her two years working for The Torch. “Since none of us at the Torch are professionals and are still learning, we on occasion make mistakes,” she added.
|
