On Sunday night, the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate voted down an appeal by the Media Advocacy Board (MAB) to fund a stipend for the public editor next year. This was a significant setback not only for the future of this position, but also for the entire Tufts community.
During the approximately 30-minute-long budget appeal process, it became clear that few questioned the importance of the public editor; most agreed that the position served a valuable role on campus. As such, this piece primarily will focus not on the value of the public editor position itself, but rather on the importance of funding its stipend.
First of all, a stipend provides the public editor a certain authority. The money says to our campus community, "This position is important. It is something we believe in and value so much that we will provide its holder compensation." For a position like the public editor, establishing authority is paramount. It is the role of this individual to provide commentary on campus journalism issues — often ones of an ethical nature — and also to spark a meaningful campus dialogue. Without an established position on campus, the public editor will be little more than just another voice.
Beyond establishing authority, a stipend also helps to attract quality candidates. The public editor position is still new and, like any two-year-old position, is in its early stages of development. It is still growing, evolving and establishing a reputation. For that reason, it is of the utmost importance that we work to attract and employ the most qualified candidates possible.
Most frequently, these qualified candidates will be juniors and seniors: those on campus who have the most experience and perspective. Unfortunately, juniors and seniors are also the most committed students on campus and therefore the least likely to take on the additional burden of an unpaid position. For upperclassmen to consider applying, the public editor position needs to compete with jobs, internships and research opportunities. There is no better way to do that than with a stipend.
At Sunday night's Senate meeting, one of the most frequently heard arguments against a public editor stipend was that no other campus writer receives any kind of compensation. This is true, but they were missing the point. The public editor is no simple "campus writer." In fact, it's a position unlike any other at Tufts. The public editor is a writer with weekly responsibilities and one who operates completely independently of all other campus publications. There is no repository of story ideas, no editorial staff and no one to turn to when a deadline cannot be made. The public editor is required to be an active, regular reader of all campus publications and produce weekly articles on a one-man team. Unique positions call for unique circumstances, and the public editor is certainly a one-of-a-kind position.
If you've ever had the pleasure of sitting in on a meeting of the TCU Senate or Tufts Allocations Board, you have certainly heard frequent references to "precedent." Senate decisions are frequently driven by precedent, except, it would seem, in the case of the public editor.
For Sunday night's decision, clearer precedent could not have been set: In October 2008, upon the creation of the public editor position by the Media Advocacy Board, the Senate passed a resolution titled, "A Resolution Supporting the Independence of the Tufts Public Editor." In this resolution, among other things, the Senate declared, "the new Public Editor an important step in creating a more responsible and informative campus media." The Senate also confirmed that it "voted to fund the salary of the Public Editor."
Even if you don't believe that the public editor position is unlike any other at Tufts, even if you disagree that a stipend would provide the public editor a certain authority, and even if you disagree that a stipend would help to attract quality candidates, how can you disagree that the TCU Senate should, at the very least, be following its own precedents? In this case, precedent is important because applicants for the past two years have expected a stipend in exchange for their work as the public editor. The abrupt removal of the stipend serves as a disincentive to apply.
Ultimately, a salary for the public editor is not much: a simple $500 stipend from the TCU Senate's well-over-$1 million budget. In comparison, the TCU President and Treasurer each receive a $1,500 and $2,500 stipend, respectively. Given the importance of this growing campus position, $500 is a small price to pay.
For a moment, I ask that you consider a hypothetical situation. Imagine that a campus publication prints a blatantly racist piece in an issue of their magazine. This piece completely disrupts campus, making an entire community of students feel insulted, unwelcome and threatened. A few months later, the entire campus is still reeling from this incident, and everyone is searching for answers. Where is the line between free speech and harassment? Should the publication be punished for its editorial choice? What steps can be taken to prevent something like this from happening again?
Now, I want you to imagine that out of this horrible incident arises something positive: a position to serve as the watchdog of campus media, comment on ethics in journalism and generate a meaningful campus discussion. This new position is called the public editor. By now, you've probably realized that this hypothetical situation is not so hypothetical. It happened at Tufts in 2006.
Through years of work, a Declaration on Freedom of Expression and a dash of institutional forgetfulness, our community has eventually come to terms with the 2006 incident. After all this time and effort, one of the most important elements to rise from the controversy was the public editor position.
I opened this piece by stating that I would not focus on the value of the public editor position itself, but rather on the importance of funding its stipend. However, it turns out that they are inherently connected. If you believe in the importance of the public editor — in its ability to improve the quality of life on campus — then you believe this position is important enough to deserve funding. For if we lose this position, either due to a lack of interest or a lack of qualified candidates, we have lost more than just another "campus writer."
--
Scott Silverman is a senior majoring in biology. He is the chair of the Media Advocacy Board.
