« Turpin v. Locket | Main | JOTWELL: Tidmarsh on McGovern & Rubenstein on negotiation class actions »

Tuesday, November 12, 2019

Daily Northwestern gets pummeled--some thoughts (Updated)

I am a graduate of Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism, although I never worked at The Daily Northwestern and never pursued journalism as a career. I am following and interested in the scorching negative reaction to the paper's apology for its coverage of a campus speech by Jeff Sessions last week, at which protesters gathered outside and some protesters attempted to force their way into the lecture hall, where they were confronted and restrained by campus police.

It appears the paper overreacted and that its reporting, including the photographs it took and posted online, followed appropriate journalistic standards. It also appears that some of the sharp reaction to the apology reflects the "these damn snowflakes" annoyance with millenials, such as the paper's suggesting that it harmed and "retraumatized" student protesters by reporting on them (which is what the protesters seem to charge). And the paper seemed to be motivated by the possibility that its photographs and reporting could be used as a basis to identify and sanction student protesters--Northwestern does not provide amnesty for protesters who violate university rules (such as sneaking into the reserved lecture hall) and students are not excused from attendance policies because they were out protesting.

On the other hand, I would like to see more criticism of NU President Morton Schapiro, who uttered the following (according to The Daily) in a speech he gave to visitors over parents-weekend (my friend whose kid goes to Northwestern did not attend the speech).

Although Schapiro said he supports Sessions’ right to speak on campus and NUCR’s right to invite him, he questioned whether the former attorney general was “the right speaker” for NU. He said that on a campus as liberal as Northwestern’s, there is little opportunity to share conservative thought in a way that starts dialogue.

Schapiro — who said he is personally “not a fan” of Sessions — said NUCR missed a chance to do so by inviting him rather than a different conservative speaker.

“They had an opportunity and they didn’t use it,” he said. “All it was was polarizing. All it was was making the campus more unhappy. All it did was blow up and make things even worse.”

I await Schapiro's list of conservative speakers who would be "right" for NU, sharing conservative thought in a way that starts a dialogue but that does not make the campus unhappy. Say what you will about Sessions--and he apparently criticized the protesters in his speech, while paying lip service to freedom of speech. But Sessions was Attorney General of the United States and compared with the current occupant of the office, he looks like Nicholas Katzenbach. So what speaker would have been more acceptable to this crowd?

Finally, a thought on civil disobedience. Part of the debate is whether students should be sanctioned for breaking rules or obligations when protesting--skipping class to attend the lecture, sneaking into the closed hall in an attempt to interrupt Sessions' speech, etc. NU does not excuse such violations, taking the position that there are trade-offs and that students must make choices and bear responsibility for their actions. The Associated Student Government called on the university to change those policies, at least for "students with marginalized identities."

It seems to me the dispute here is over what civil disobedience means. NU students (the protesters, the ASG, the Daily editors) appear to believe that there is a free-speech opt-out from the rules--that if you are protesting, then university rules about attendance or closed spaces do not apply. But the idea of civil disobedience is that you peacefully violate a law--and accept the consequences for that violation--to call attention to the injustice of that law or something else. There is no right to interrupt the speech within the reserved hall; if you believe it is important to interrupt anyway, civil disobedience means you will do it anyway--and you accept the consequences.

The fascinating thing is how much has changed in 30 years. I would not have described NU as a particularly liberal place when I was there.

Update: A statement from Medill Dean Charles Whitaker. It is a strong statement that: Defends the Daily's coverage of the protests as consistent with journalistic standards; takes student activists to task for threatening paper staff and insisting that journalists should not have covered disadvantaged communities in a public protest; criticizes the editors for apologizing which, while well-intentioned, sends a chilling message about journalism; and calls on angry alums to give them a break, reminding them that these are students who are learning and dealing with a unique firestorm.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 12, 2019 at 06:52 PM in First Amendment, Howard Wasserman, Judicial Process, Law and Politics | Permalink

Comments


Just link to Republicans, opposing separation as mentioned. Titled:

"Here Are the Republicans Opposing Migrant Family Separation . A growing number of GOP legislators are breaking with the Trump administration’s policy"

Here:

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/republicans-opposing-migrant-family-separation

Thanks

Posted by: El roam | Nov 13, 2019 2:59:56 PM

Interesting. Although it is reasonable to wonder, what or who would appear in such list of conservative speakers who, I quote:

" would be "right" for NU, sharing conservative thought in a way that starts a dialogue but that does not make the campus unhappy. "

Yet, one may disagree. The point is, that the left, distinguishes clearly between, trump and his administration, and other Republicans. Trump, in their view, has taken conservatism or alike, to unbearable peaks. Illustration:

Even good Republicans, strongly opposed, separation of children from their parents ( immigrants). For them, that was a red line crossing. And that one, negligible one.So, there are some.

Thanks

Posted by: El roam | Nov 13, 2019 2:54:27 PM

It's always better to be super liberal woke. These students were super liberal woke and their professor is defending them.

Lindsay Shepherd was not and her professors destroyed her.

Posted by: thegreatdisappointment | Nov 12, 2019 9:44:35 PM

Howard, you young whippersnapper, I was an undergrad 50 years ago during the tumult of the 60s on college campuses. One thing that hasn't changed at all is that a prominent requirement for being the president of an elite university is total lack of backbone.

Posted by: PaulB | Nov 12, 2019 9:29:16 PM

Post a comment