CCSC Does it Again

On January 15, 2009, following a Recorder staff-training meeting, I was taken aside to meet with the paper's Editor-in-Chief, Melissa Traynor, and Managing Editor, Peter Collin. They informed me that they were aware I had been involved in recent demonstrations against the Israeli invasion of Gaza and told me that my involvement was a "conflict of interest." I was allowed to leave the office without being fired, but it was made clear that my activity outside of the paper was being watched. Less than a week later, I met with the paper's advisor, Dr. Vivian Martin, who then spoke to the editor-in-chief; I got a phone call later from the editor, saying she hadn't meant to threaten my job.

Nothing else was said about the incident until Tuesday, March 10, when the same two editors called me into the office once more. The conversation was almost identical to the first--the difference, however, was that this time I was asked outright to choose between my involvement with the Youth for Socialist Action or The Recorder. In addition, if I chose to stay with The Recorder, I would be limited to writing about only campus issues. My personal beliefs were not at issue, they claimed, but that I had acted on those beliefs. I was accused of using the Recorder as a "soap box" for my socialist beliefs, and that my voice and opinion was too consistent. I asked to have some time to think about the decision, and left the office.

Once again, I met with the advisor, along with Sue Sweeney, Assistant Director of Student Affairs. Again, I was assured that the paper could not present me with this ultimatum.

At this point, it should be noted that I had been the Opinion Editor for over a semester. Even before being hired by the Recorder, I gave full disclosure of my socialist politics--as well as my involvement in antiwar and human rights organizing--to the editor-in-chief, as well as the advisor. Since giving this disclosure, I was baited by both the staff and the advisor, for being a "communist," drinking Starbucks, and not being a "good little socialist." Previous to this admission, however, the editor-in-chief told me explicitly that I would be allowed to write about anything. "We like anything- topics that are important to the students, CCSU, the nation, whatever and then narrow something down to the point where we have a unified stance and you can write it from there," the editor-in-chief said in the email informing me that I was their top choice for the position. All of the articles I had written for the section up until that point were national, political, and obviously left-leaning, but nothing had been said about it.

Within 24hrs of being given my ultimatum, the editor-in-chief had called an "emergency meeting" scheduled for Wednesday, March 11 at 6:00pm. Upon arriving at the meeting however, I realized that the lock codes had been changed to deny me entry. The editor-in-chief promptly walked up to the door and invited me in, making it clear that the meeting had been canceled, and that she wanted to meet for a third time with only the managing editor and me. Given the circumstances, however, I declined the offer and left.

As a voting member of the editorial board, I decided to take action at the next regular meeting of the Recorder, Sunday, March 25. I submitted two amendments to the paper's constitution--one stating that "political, religious, or personal affiliations or beliefs" were not grounds for hiring or firing at the paper, and the other stating that any hiring or firing of paid positions should be voted upon by the members of the paper, instead of by appointment from the editor-in-chief. The staff made it clear that both were unwelcome, and I was asked to leave the meeting after being told that I had been fired sometime during the course of the past few days. I had never been informed of that action.

After being sent an email from the editor-in-chief stating that, "I have decided that I am not going to submit to you or anyone else a written statement from The Recorder detailing your being removed from office," Sue Sweeney initiated a meeting that would force the paper to give me due process, as well as the opportunity for me to formally state my opposition to the decision.

This time, the reasons for my now "multifaceted" firing had been changed dramatically. I hadn't been doing my job, the editor-in-chief told me. My work wasn't up to their standards, I didn't lead enough editorial board meetings and I wasn't attending the weekly self-critiques. In closing, the editor-in-chief commented that it wasn't that my political affiliations were a conflict of interest, but that they had the chance of becoming one. In addition, staff members and section editors accused me of wasting their time to challenge the decision to remove me; attempting to get prior review of a news article written about the YSA; claiming to represent the paper at antiwar events; and having a "radical liberal agenda"--all of which, I pointed out in the meeting, are false charges. They ultimately upheld my removal.

Controversy regarding free speech and the Recorder, as much of campus knows, is not new. Unfortunately, that controversy is now being used to justify censoring writers. The paper's code of conduct--which admits in the editor's note that "much of what was put into this code of ethics was based on experiences at the newspaper in 2007"--has institutionalized censorship. One example that resulted from this code includes: "Editors of The Recorder shall not participate in any form of student, local or national government and should be free of any ties to any political organization, campus-based or otherwise. Participation in government or political organizations may give off a false sense of favoritism that would harm the credibility of the newspaper."

This unconstitutional and undemocratic provision has allowed the past three editors to systematically exclude writers with differing political views. PRIDE Vice-President Erin McAuliffe was denied a promotion after refusing to support an editorial attacking the club; Progressive Student Alliance members Kari and Wes were both marginalized and censored while working as writers for the paper.

The double standards are obvious. College Republican Shauna Simone--my assistant editor, who now holds my title--was offered a conservative column; when I asked if I would get a socialist column, the idea was quickly dropped. Green Party National Committee Representative Tim McKee was allowed to publish a "special to the Recorder" article on former Green Party presidential nominee Cynthia McKinney's visit to Central; an article I submitted to the next issue about Framing of Mumia Abu-Jamal author John O'Connor's visit to campus, was never published. Although staff writer Joe Zajac was involved with the Anonymous protests against Scientology and has been able to publish multiple articles attacking that institution, it was made clear to me that articles on Iraq, Afghanistan, or Gaza written by me were not welcome.

For the record, there has only been one article about socialism printed by the Recorder during my tenure as Opinion Editor, and it was written as a Q&A by the editor-in-chief after the senate candidate from the Socialist Workers Party paid an unannounced visit to our office. I had no prior knowledge of the visit, though I was accused of "setting up" the editor-in-chief.

The actions I am willing to take in order to fight my removal are not against the Recorder, but against its undemocratic and unconstitutional policies. For students, an independent, democratic, and uncensored publication is a necessity. But at the Recorder, although the editor-in-chief is voted in, he or she has the power to refuse to publish writers' articles, thus stripping them of their ability to vote. The fundamental right of students to democratically run their paper is weak at best, as the editor-in-chief is then allowed to make almost every decision pertaining to the paper.

I challenge the Recorder and the Media Board to not only reinstate me, but to strike down the previous decisions that led to my unjust removal. First, to state--in the Recorder's constitution--that discrimination based on any aspect of a student's life will not be tolerated. This should include, but not be limited to, political and religious beliefs or affiliation, gender, sexual orientation, race, or nationality. Second, to grant full democratic control of the paper to its members--a student who, as defined in the constitution, "devote a minimum of one hour of journalistic participation per weekly publication; for at least one month." This would mean obtaining a 2/3 majority vote for the hiring or firing of any paid staff members; a democratic appeal process that members could use to settle disputes fairly; and the ability of the members to remove an editor-in-chief during the semester.

It is my goal to present Central students with a way to make The Recorder the voice of our university, instead of the voice of a few. Together with students of color, the GLBT community, independent women, progressive students, interfaith groups and all other groups that have been either censored or excluded by our student newspaper, there is no reason we cannot use this opportunity to strengthen our freedom of speech on campus.