The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a free press – a sentiment extended to student newspapers.
There is a movement to deny The Penn the funding that allows us to exercise this right.
As referenced in the article on page six, The Penn's budget has been denied due to not meeting certain criteria or providing a detailed business plan.
This is not the case.
On Feb. 21, a member of the finance committee approached Joe Lawley, director of The Penn, wishing to discuss the newspaper's budget.
The Penn had previously been denied funding, and an appeal was in process.
Vaughn Johnson, editor in chief of The Penn, was also present at this meeting. The member of the finance committee was asked what the main reasons were that the newspaper was denied funding. The member listed the following reasons:
•The quality of The Penn is poor
•The types of stories covered are poor
•The lack of student-written stories
•The student-written stories are poor
•There are copy editing mistakes
•The number of student-written stories has been cut
The committee member went on the say that many of the reasons The Penn has not fared well with the Finance Committee would be non-issues if the paper were to take care of the "editorial concerns" that members of the committee shared.
Worth knowing are the following points:
•In the Sept. 20, 2010 issue of The Penn, it was incorrectly stated that an off-campus housing fair was sponsored by the Office of Housing and Resident Life, when it was really a product of the Student Government Association. This was (quite harshly and unprofessionally) pointed out to the editors, and a correction was run.
•A column ran in the opinion section Oct. 1, 2010. The column called SGA "dysfunctional" and raised other concerns regarding the association.
•Several members of the SGA also sit on the Finance Committee.
•Subsequently, The Penn was denied funding by the Finance Committee.
This, folks, is unconstitutional.
In the 1969 Supreme Court Case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the court ruled that student expression cannot be censored unless it 1) Would result in a material and substantial disruption of normal school activities, or 2) invades the rights of others.
Denying The Penn funding because we've upset you and you don't like our content? That qualifies as censorship.
In addition to the aforementioned court case, Bazaar v. Fortune established the fact that school officials cannot "censor or confiscate a publication, withdraw or reduce its funding, withhold student activities fees, prohibit lawful advertising, fire an editor or adviser, ‘stack' a student media board, discipline staff members or take any other action that is motivated by an attempt to control, manipulate or punish past or future content."
In addition, "student government officials are subject to the same First Amendment restraints as school administrators. For example, they cannot punish a paper's staff or advisor or withdraw a publication's funds for content-based reasons."
There. Glad we've got that taken care of.
Going back to the meeting of Johnson, Lawley and the Finance Committee member, it was also mentioned that there would be a meeting that night to "discuss The Penn's budget." Further elaboration showed that this was not an official meeting of the Finance Committee – it was that of the SGA.
The SGA and the Finance Committee are two separate entities. What business does the SGA, who has no hand The Penn's budget, have discussing this matter?
This begs the question of whether the SGA is punishing the newspaper via denial of funding by the Finance Committee.
We ask these questions not only on behalf of The Penn, but on behalf of all of the student organizations that are funded by the Co-op. If all it takes to get denied funding is angering the SGA, then who could be next?
Hypothetically, if an SGA member is offended by Sue Johanson coming to talk about sex, then will The Entertainment Network be attacked due to the fact that the Co-op-funded organization co-sponsored the event?
As stated in the aforementioned page-six article, The Penn was told to come up with a "business plan" in which it would be laid out how it intends to come out financially in the black next year. Despite a plan being drawn up and submitted, these are the "criteria" that were not met, and led to the denial of funding.
Thus, a committee is to be formed to act as a liaison between The Penn and the Finance Committee, assumedly in order for the Finance Committee to be able to better understand the inner-workings of The Penn.
Concern was voiced by a member of the Finance Committee, saying that The Penn should not be micromanaged.
Don't worry, was the reply. No such thing would happen.
Is that not exactly what this committee would be doing? Members of the Finance Committee have openly voiced their disdain for the newspaper and its content. This ad-hoc committee would be the perfect avenue for them the swoop in and attempt to restructure.
David Bivens, SGA president and Finance Committee member, expressed his dislike for The Penn at an SGA meeting Monday, March 21, according to the online publication The Hawkeye.
Bivens, the publication said, was questioned as to why The Penn was denied funding (again, The Penn's budget's relevance to the SGA is…?).
His response was quoted as follows:
"‘They failed to meet certain criteria, and The Penn sucks,' said Bivens. ‘And that's on the record.'"
But no, the denial of funding by the Finance Committee – on which certain members of the SGA sit – is not personal at all. Not at all.
is a member of the 
2 comments