This past week, we attracted many new writers to The Stute. It is the wave of freshman interest, and there is both delight and worry in this. Normally, new writers gravitate toward the most “hard-hitting” articles. This can range from controversial national news topics to widespread campus issues.
In this particular issue, we attempted to include several articles that highlight choices that the administration made that much of the student body were unhappy with. Because The Stute is committed to unbiased reporting, we reach out to the administration for their side of the story. I also personally believe it is important that the students are aware who made certain decisions, and more importantly, why these decisions were made. So when new writers take on these stories, they are tasked with emailing the appropriate faculty members and groups of students who have been affected by the decision.
Students are vocal, loud, and proud. We have no problem voicing our issues and telling the administration when we believe there are flaws in their reasoning. Many student leaders are quick to reply to Stute writers and provide thoughtful quotes that reflect their passion and perspective on the issue.
On the other hand, our experience with the administration is vastly different. Many ask to have interview questions emailed to them, so that they may prepare written responses. Those responses then go through additional review by Sara Klein, Vice President of Student Affairs, and more often than not, the Stevens Legal Team. By the time the responses reach our new staff, it often lacks detail, context, directness, and the emotion to fully answer any questions being asked.
And therein lies my issues with the administration.
The first is that there seems to be a reluctance to take ownership of difficult decisions. When my team and I try to determine who to email about certain decisions, everyone forgets the responsible parties. My answer to that is quite simple: stand up, own the decision, and explain it. If a decision was made thoughtfully and with the welfare of the students in mind, there should be no hesitation to explain the reasoning behind it. Students deserve more than the beautiful words sent back on an email chain. We deserve to understand how and why decisions that directly affect us are being made.
The second is the effect these PR responses have on my writers. Many new writers come into The Stute with bright eyes, curiosity, and an eagerness to learn. When they receive those responses, they are left with no information, unanswered questions, and forced to continue searching somewhere else. Over time, several PR responses later, those writers become heavily discouraged. I have watched writers lose that initial excitement when they realize that they do not have the information necessary to tell the full story.
My final issue is how it inevitably affects my job as Editor-in-Chief. When a writer needs additional time to pursue unanswered questions, they may need an extension. This can change the planned format of an issue and create additional work for myself, editors, and copy editors.
A carefully worded response may satisfy the administration’s objective, but never the journalistic one. Our responsibility is not to make one side look better than the other. Our responsibility is to report the story as thoroughly and accurately as we can.
And I promise, we will never let the lack of answers stop us from asking questions. We will continue to dig and follow up to seek the information we, as students, deserve. Because we are The Stute, and we are an unbiased newspaper, and what is a story without both sides?
