Expression on Campus

Colleges and universities have long seen clashes between diversity, equity, and inclusion practices and free expression rights (Kors and Silverglate Citation1999). Beginning in the late 1980s, critics largely on the political right accused universities of abandoning their commitment to free intellectual debate by embracing “political correctness” (Bloom Citation1987).

More recently, controversies have arisen over disinviting and disrupting campus speakers, regulating campus protests, policing microaggressions, creating so-called “safe spaces,” and calling for discipline of students and faculty for both on-campus and off-campus speech (Campbell and Manning Citation2018). During the administration of former President Donald Trump, for example, many campuses faced increased calls from students to censor and punish expression on the political right on issues such as race and immigration, raising the need for universities to clarify and communicate public forum regulations and content neutrality principles dictated by the First Amendment (Patton Citation2017). In recent years, social media often flamed outraged rhetoric about these controversies on both sides of the political spectrum (Shepard and Culver Citation2018).

At the heart of many of these debates is the extent to which universities should protect students from hurtful expression. In the last generation, liberal principles of robust academic freedom have been challenged as sometimes incompatible with diversity, equity, and inclusion principles (Rauch Citation2013). Critical race theorists have called for greater regulation of expression to protect minorities from degrading and dehumanizing speech (Matsuda et al. Citation1993).

In recent years, academic leaders have examined the role of universities in these recent controversies, calling for a need to demonstrate commitment to both free expression values and diversity, equity, and inclusion practices. In Free Speech on Campus, Chemerinsky and Gillman (Citation2017) argue that a new generation of students values civility and anti-offense more than they value free expression rights, and as a result, university leaders have a responsibility to articulate and defend the values of free expression in an environment that increasingly favors censorship of ideas that some people deem offensive or hurtful (Chemerinsky and Gillman Citation2017). In a book by the same name, Ben-Porath (Citation2017) argues that “the liberal commitment to an open-minded atmosphere on campus” is under threat by efforts to limit debate and prevent expression of views some people believe are beyond the bounds of reasonable discussion. She argues universities adopt a framework of “inclusive freedom” that allows for “dignitary safety” of its participants but not necessarily their “intellectual safety.” And in Safe Spaces, Brave Spaces: Diversity and Free Expression in Education, Palfrey (Citation2017) examines the “case for diversity” against the case for “free expression” within the educational framework and in the context of what he sees as rising intolerance in society.

College Journalism

Student newspapers play an important and complex role in journalism education. At many colleges and universities, student newspapers provide a training laboratory where students learn “on the job” about the roles and responsibilities of journalists and also providing a forum for independent news and information about campus communities (Kanigel Citation2011). Students working at student newspapers embrace and learn from the independent editorial judgment they have in covering their campus communities (Gutsche and Salkin Citation2011). In some communities, student newspapers are filling the void left by the closure of professional newspapers (Levin Citation2019). Student participation in student media, including at the k-12 level, have been found to offer educational benefits for students, both in terms of their journalistic preparation but also more broadly with positive academic outcomes (Dvorak and Choi Citation2009). Beyond that, studies have found that student media serve to put into practice the principles of the First Amendment and the missions of both public and private educational institutions (Salkin Citation2022). Both universities and the press, embodied in this case by student newspapers, are two primary civic institutions “that help make our First Amendment freedoms, and public discourse itself, possible and meaningful” (Horwitz Citation2012).

Student newspapers provide students with opportunities to learn about journalism, including ethics, by practicing the craft. Student newspapers are not immune to criticism from different audiences for their work. Occasionally, student newspapers find themselves as proxies in these controversies, applying, articulating, and sometimes questioning traditional journalism ethics. Normative journalism ethics is the product of ongoing analysis and synthesis about best practices in the gathering and dissemination of information to the public. The Society of Professional Journalists states that its members “believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy,” and SPJ's Code of Ethics declares four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism: Seek Truth and Report It, Minimize Harm, Act Independently, and Be Accountable and Transparent (Society of Professional Journalists Citationn.d.). Kovach and Rosenstiel’s (Citation2014) book, The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect, examines the purposes of journalism and argues that journalists establish authority with readers through verification, independence, engagement, and providing a public forum. Journalism educators have debated whether the teaching of journalism ethics is preferable in stand-alone courses or embedded across the curriculum (Groshek and Conway Citation2013). Scholars suggest that linkage between professional workplaces and journalism classrooms is a continuing area in need of study (Hanson Citation2002).

The college newsroom is often an important site for examination of pedagogy and professional preparation (Bockino Citation2018). Recent studies of college journalism have examined motivations and roles of aspiring journalists, as well as student journalists’ conceptions of ethics. For example, one recent study of college journalists shows that students share the same beliefs as professionals when it comes to the main roles of journalism, including journalists’ roles as interpreter, investigator, disseminator, adversary, and populist motivator. However, today's students view journalists as needing to become more a part of the conversation with audiences and sources than did prior generations (Coleman et al. Citation2018; Culver and LoMonte Citation2021).

Coverage of campus protests—and the broader cultural and societal issues they raise—has long been a part of student newspaper coverage. Armstrong (Citation2017) traces student newspaper coverage of protests to the early days of the development of student newspapers in the 1800s.

Coverage of Race

Questions about and critiques of roles and responsibilities of journalists, including those at student newspapers, have been sharpened in recent years in the context of coverage of race, racism, and social justice. Following national protests over racial injustice in the summer of 2020, several newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times and the Kansas City Star, published extensive apologies for their poor records of supporting racial justice (Fannin Citation2020; Los Angeles Times Editorial Board Citation2020).

Scholars have studied journalism criticism from a variety of perspectives, including as a challenge to journalistic autonomy and authority. Carlson (Citation2017) argues that journalism is predicated on the belief that readers will believe news stories based in part on the sociotechnical construction of journalistic authority involving “an array of actors, organizational structures, communication technologies, and cultural practices.” Carlson and others have argued that maintaining and enhancing journalistic authority involves continuous effort through knowledge construction and discourse among individuals and institutions. Journalists have societal credibility because they often bear witness and accurately and fairly report what they see to the public through professional practices and conventions that enhance journalistic authority. Carlson argues that the theory of journalistic authority is based on three premises: many actors affect how news obtains authority, the relationships are contextual, and no single variable can explain news authority.

Journalistic practices in covering race have changed over time. González and Torres (Citation2011) book, News for All the People: The Epic Story of Race and the American Media, offers a sweeping historical tour of media coverage of race from colonial America through the modern age, finding that racial bias in media coverage reinforced racial ignorance, group hatred, and discriminatory government policies throughout American history. In her recent book, Reporting on Race in a Digital Era, Nielsen (Citation2020) explores the ways in which coverage of race in the United States has changed in recent years through analysis of three journalistic models, which she identifies as the “traditional journalism/representative liberal” model, the “interactive race beat journalism” model, and “Journalism 3.0.” Journalism 3.0 is based on the belief that unexamined assumptions about how discourse should be constructed has limited those who participate, and that there is not just one public square but multiple public squares that require a rethinking of community in the digital era. Nielsen identifies coverage of protests in Ferguson, Missouri, after the police shooting death of Michael Brown in 2014 as a turning point for the traditional journalism model, in which traditional news coverage of race issues shifted from mere events coverage to examinations of larger systems of power. This shift in news practices was prompted in part by new technology that enabled audiences to become part of the news narratives and speak back to news producers. Nielsen identified evidence in both textual analysis and interviews that modern journalism across her three models seeks to empower the audience, privileges voices of the marginalized, and leverages technology to determine the audience's agenda. Her research provides evidence that journalists, including those from traditional news organizations, are embracing the need to “boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience” and “seek sources whose voices we seldom hear,” two additions in 2014 to SPJ's Code of Ethics.

Some recent studies have examined journalistic practices through the lens of marginalized communities and the Black Lives Matter movement. Kil (Citation2020) studied and critiqued news coverage of “All Lives Matter” commentary through the lens of critical race theory, calling for “increased color-conscious, intersectional news reporting.” Blackstone, Cowart, and Saunders (Citation2017) examined how social media posts influenced perceptions of the protests and riots in Ferguson, Missouri. Varma’s (Citation2020) study of journalists’ coverage of homelessness in San Francisco found that while journalists regularly demonstrate empathy toward the individuals they cover, a broader notion of solidarity with communities could create a more just society. Varma draws from Iyengar (Citation1990) to analogize concepts of journalistic empathy and solidarity with episodic and systemic framing. She advocates that journalistic solidarity embraces systemic framing of social justice issues with a focus on actions and solutions. She argues that journalists incorporate solidarity as a deliberative value through “radical inclusion” practices such as diverse sourcing, interviewing, and framing techniques. Usher (Citation2021) examines the crisis of modern journalism through issues of place, race, class, and politics, arguing that new models taking into account local geographic needs in broader social contexts may be more successful and healthier for democracy.

Method

This study analyzed 164 opinion pieces related to the Harvard and Northwestern cases, as well as primary source material, such as statements from the two papers and the Medill School dean. Stories were identified through keyword searching via the Lexis/Nexis database, ProQuest database, and Google Advanced Search. Searches were conducted for “Harvard Crimson” for the period 9/13/2019-9/13/2020 and for “Daily Northwestern” for the period 11/5/2019-11/5/2020. A coder reviewed all retrieved stories to remove duplicates and material not related to the protest cases. Stories were included regardless of whether they ran in print or on a news website. Stories broadcast on television or radio news were excluded if they did not run as text on the outlet's website. Duplicate versions of wire service stories were eliminated. Texts were assigned to a “news” category and eliminated from the analysis if they took a neutral reporting approach, even if they were published in an ideologically driven outlet, such as The Daily Caller, so the analysis focuses on opinion journalism. The research focused on opinion journalism to explore what news organizations and individual journalists argue ought to be the roles and practices of journalism and the appropriate responses to activist pressure. Beginning with a directed qualitative content analysis approach (Hsieh and Shannon Citation2005), this study coded the texts to examine three conceptual areas: First Amendment rights, values, and theories; journalistic practices and ethics; and race. The authors then conducted a conventional qualitative content analysis to discover themes that emerged in each of the conceptual areas (Lindlof and Taylor Citation2011).

Expressions of First Amendment Rights, Values and Theories

The corpus of opinion pieces on the Harvard Crimson case showed remarkable similarity in themes emerging related to First Amendment freedoms. The texts speak exclusively to the rights of a free press, rather than free speech, though many scholars argue the press clause of the First Amendment is more rightly understood to protect the press as a technology rather than an institution (Volokh Citation2011). They point to student journalists enjoying full free expression protection, even while situated at a private institution. And they speak to threats the petition posed to First Amendment rights.

The First Amendment and press protections did not emerge strongly in the coverage of the Northwestern Daily's apology. Such concepts as the marketplace of ideas, heightened protection for speech related to self-governance, and a preferred position for free expression when it comes into conflict with other liberties were entirely absent from opinion coverage of both controversies.

Expressions of Journalism Practices and Ethics

Opinion coverage of the Crimson case focused far more on journalism practices and ethics than on matters of free speech and press rights, as would be expected when a conflict arises between journalists and activists, as opposed to journalists and government. Four primary themes arose in this arena: “standard” or “routine” practices, fairness, neutrality, and objectivity. Interestingly, some pieces staked a claim that the role of a free press in a democracy is “to deliver fair and unbiased reporting” (Heights Editorial Board Citation2019), apparently abandoning the contributions of opinion journalism and advocacy that characterized their own publications. In defending standard approaches, authors used such terms as “journalism 101” and “basic reporting” when referring to calling ICE for comment on the protest. They linked these approaches to the concepts of neutrality and objectivity. “Talking to people with a wide variety of viewpoints isn't some hidebound rule passed down from one generation of reporters to the next. It is essential to journalism” (Metzger Citation2019). Objectivity is ill-defined in the opinion pieces, often seemingly used as a default word. No piece included the myriad critiques of objectivity in journalism, such as its use as a “strategic ritual” (Tuchman Citation1972), its exclusive nature (Robinson and Culver Citation2016), or misconstruing it as the “view from nowhere” (Rosen Citation2010). Other themes inherent in journalism ethics—truth-telling, minimization of harm, independence, transparency, accountability, or serving as a public forum—did not emerge strongly in the content analysis of the opinion pieces on the Harvard case. Overall, the pieces showed strong support for the Crimson staff and leadership, both in their original decision-making on calling ICE for comment and on their full-throated defense of that call and the general practices that prompted it.

When the Northwestern Daily took its response to activists’ complaints in a different direction, the swift response overwhelmingly reinforced traditional practices and notions of objectivity. The Daily's apology resulted in more than 70 opinion pieces from news outlets and such advocacy groups as the National Rifle Association. Where opinion on the Harvard case purported to offer lessons on journalism routines to activists and other students, the Northwestern pieces most often took aim at the Daily's editors themselves, with one calling the piece, “a sniveling, embarrassing apology” (Soave Citation2019). Pieces reinforced what they framed as standard reporting practices, with such lines as, “Let's be clear. Contacting people involved in newsworthy events is just called reporting and it's absolutely appropriate” (Dallas Morning News Editorial Citation2019).

Harm to journalism and public understanding of current events and issues also was a common theme.

Two pieces of the Northwestern opinion coverage challenged traditional notions of objectivity. One argued,

Framing the Activists

The opinion pieces in both cases had strong themes related to the activists’ requests to divert from standard journalistic practices. One important theme was dismissiveness about questions of safety raised by the activists. In both cases, complaints to the student newspapers were coming from people who had protested publicly. Authors argued that demonstrators using their own expression rights in public spaces must face the consequences of those choices, including being identified through names or photographs in news coverage and called by reporters for follow-up. In the Harvard case, writers emphasized that a call to ICE for comment without using protesters’ names posed no threat at all of “tipping off” the agency, as the petition had claimed.

A small number of pieces, from conservative outlets, tied the activists to larger claims common in “culture war” controversies, such as labeling them the “social justice mob” and invoking buzz-word phrases, such as “political correctness” and “cancel culture.”

In the Northwestern case, activists’ calls received less attention than the Daily staff's decision-making and apology. A small number of pieces did call out the idea of wanting to be “safe” while protesting publicly.

Student Newspapers, Community, and Trust-Building

Editor Troy Closson's note that student journalism operates in a unique space in which reporters routinely interact with the fellow students, faculty, staff, and administrators they cover arose as a theme repeatedly in the segment of the opinion coverage corpus that was published in student newspapers. Few of the mainstream outlets analyzed had this theme though a Washington Post commentator wrote:

Just eight student publications archived in the databases searched editorialized on the Crimson case (all in support of the paper's stand) while more than 50 ran opinion pieces on the Northwestern case. While these did feature many of the same themes as the mainstream news coverage, the more dominant themes were supporting the Daily against criticism from other journalists and explanatory pieces about the nature of student journalism and the importance of learning while doing. “For many of us, this is our first contact with the world of reporting. We’re going to make mistakes, so rather than bash us on Twitter, I ask that you help us learn from them” (Panetta Citation2019). These pieces almost entirely opposed the Daily's decision but made clear that the backlash was overwrought, especially given that student journalists were at issue. “Errors in judgement deserve fair and honest criticism, but more than that, they deserve forgiveness” (DePaulia Editorial Board Citation2019).

Some of these explanatory pieces noted the unique character of student journalism. Decisions, they argued, are affected by reporters’ and editors’ proximity to the people they cover. They are situated within their community and thus answer directly to sources when they are concerned.

A small number of pieces directly challenged the “standard practices” highlighted in much of the other opinion coverage, questioning whether it is time for reconsidering commonly accepted journalism ethics.

Another situated the controversy in racial terms, writing that she had been seeing the controversy through “a white lens” while the people hurt were from marginalized populations. She argues this must be taken into consideration when reasoning through decisions like the Daily made. “Just like language, journalism ethics are fluid and need to be treated as such. That doesn't mean rules shouldn't exist, but there should always be room for growth” (Cawley Citation2019).

Four pieces from two universities showed the particular tensions at issue in the Harvard and Northwestern cases. At Tufts University, the Editorial Board at the Tufts Daily newspaper initially defended the Crimson, noting,

At the end of the 2019–2020 academic year, the Editorial Board at the Stanford Daily at Stanford University published a piece titled, “Ethical journalism for a new age.” In it, the board argued that college news outlets must re-examine traditional ethics codes and develop policies for covering protests. They emphasized the harm that can arise from such coverage and noted their dual missions of informing the public while minimizing that harm. The board offered a four-point plan: engage readership on what ethical journalism means; discuss consequences of coverage with sources before they participate; develop policies for capturing photographs that identify protesters; and engage in regular discussion of implicit bias.

Two days later, a lone dissenting member of the Editorial Board published his rebuttal, claiming the board was suggesting the Stanford Daily abandon its mission of “relevant, unbiased journalism.” He criticized student activists who, he argued, were threatening the paper's objectivity and demanding social justice approaches to journalism.