At Wesleyan University, student government and student press are at war over free speech, the balance of power and inclusion. The conflict currently focuses on a resolution passed by the Wesleyan Student Assembly (WSA) cutting the budget of The Wesleyan Argus, the university’s primary student newspaper, from $30,000 to $13,000 per year.
The controversy over this motion stems not only from the whopping size of the budget cut, but also from its catalyst. The resolution for the Argus’ reduced funding closely followed the publication of a controversial op-ed piece by Bryan Stascavage, an Iraq War veteran and return-to-college student, in which the Wesleyan sophomore questions the validity of the Black Lives Matter movement. Stascavage’s piece sparked outrage amongst the student body, causing students to throw the incendiary edition of the Argus into recycling bins in an earth-friendly act of rebellion.
While I do not agree with many of Stascavage’s claims—which include the comment that Black Lives Matter representatives “need to stand with police units”—he, as a student writer and a member of the Wesleyan community, had the right to make his argument in the student paper. In response, the Wesleyan student body had its own right to toss the papers out, but subsequent occurrences evidence the fact that the WSA overstepped its bounds.
Following the publication of Stascavage’s article, a petition circulated and was signed by several Wesleyan students, including the WSA president, demanding that the Argus lose all its funding, which would effectively shut the paper down. Although this extreme attempt failed, the WSA’s more reasonable resolution came in the wake of the conflict and passed 27-0 with four abstaining votes on Oct. 18.
Alex Garcia ’17, the resolution’s primary writer, makes it clear in a statement released on Medium.com that the budget cuts did not arise as a response to Stascavage’s article. The $17,000 that WSA elected to remove from the Argus’ budget will be re-invested in what he and many of his Wesleyan peers believe are important changes in the culture of student journalism.
While the proposed reforms could have some much-needed impact, I just don’t buy it.
The resolution states that starting in fall 2016, the WSA will redistribute the Argus’ funding between four student publications, including the Argus. Rather than allocating the $17,000 evenly, the individual amounts granted will rely on a popular vote in which the entire student body may decide which publications they prioritize. Once granted their funding, these newspapers and magazines will be required to spend the money by creating stipend-paid positions (20 in total between the four publications) and on Facebook, boosting their posts in order to increase readership.
Garcia describes Stascavage’s op-ed and the WSA resolution as “inaccurately linked” by media outlets and unhappy Argus staff. He notes that “with lower economic barriers and some academic incentives, [Wesleyan] can make it easier for more people to get involved with journalism and media,” thus allowing for a more diverse set of voices in student journalism.
The goal to make student journalism therefore appears valid and necessary, as students from wealthier backgrounds frequently benefit from a more flexible schedule and therefore have more time to spend on journalism. That said, the timing makes it suspicious.
Tess Morgan ’16, co-Editor-in-Chief of the Argus, explained that like at Conn, all registered student organizations have budget hearings at the beginning of each semester before the Wesleyan student government. Clubs present to the Student Budget Committee (SBC), which exists as a subset of the WSA.
“From our conversations with the WSA, it sounded like they might revoke our funding,” Morgan told the Voice, adding that the WSA originally pushed to put the budget cuts into effect in the spring 2016 semester, but were convinced to wait a full year. Given the rushed nature of the Argus’ budget changes, it does not make sense for the WSA’s resolution to lack a connection to Stascavage’s article.
“I think Alex has the best intentions,” Morgan commented, “but we had not heard anything about cutting our funds [before Stascavage’s piece].”
Garcia asserts in his released statement that his resolution “does not cut funding for The Wesleyan Argus,” which is technically true; while the resolution does not explicitly state the specific cuts in funding, it does refer to “significantly cutting the amount of paper copies of The Wesleyan Argus prints” and spending a year on “study and debate of the impact of using print reduction as a funding source for this proposal.”
In an editorial published on Oct. 16, Morgan and co-Editor-in-Chief Rebecca Brill state that of the current $15,000 per semester granted to the Argus, $12,435 go toward printing alone, as the Argus releases 1,000 copies of their 12-page paper twice weekly. The print reduction, therefore, appears to be a thinly-veiled budget cut. Furthermore, although the resolution relies on a year-long study, Morgan noted that the WSA originally aimed to institute its changes next semester, which led me to conclude that this “study”–and with it, the integrity of student journalism–holds a low priority.
Garcia claims that media outlets commenting on the issue—including The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and The Hartford Courant—have been “intentionally misrepresenting and/or sensationalizing the resolution that [Garcia] proposed,” but in doing so he fails to acknowledge the controlling nature of the proposed solutions to inequity.
“He doesn’t address editorial autonomy,” Morgan commented, explaining why she counts Garcia’s medium.com piece among those that are incorrect.
The funding problem surpasses a simple reduction, as the resolution will dictate how the Argus’ $17,000 will be spent by each publication, once redistributed.
“I do think that the resolution will make students a lot more hesitant to express themselves,” said Stascavage via email to the Voice, “it is a huge overreach, a student government should not meddle with or dictate terms to a student group on campus.”
With this resolution, the WSA ignores the notion that in the outside world, beyond college campuses, the press and the government must operate independently from one another in order to allow free public expression. In doing this, the WSA reveals itself as a truly student-run organization, subject to all the naivete of a group actively learning by doing. Although I do not believe that the Argus’ budget resolution was unrelated to Stascavage’s article, the resolution’s timing matters regardless. As Stascavage said, “The proximity of the vote to the controversy with the Argus makes it seem like backlash and censorship, even if the authors of the resolution have sustainability and equity intentions (which I believe they do).”
Although there is surely a need for greater inclusivity in student journalism, the WSA missed the mark on promoting it. In this case, they communicated that rather than debating sensitive topics, we should avoid discussion in order to keep our funding. •
