Editorial: Yes...it can happen here

By Lauren Rothering

Editor in Chief

Last month, you may have noticed an unusual by-line for an article about student housing on the second page of the Cardinal: “By Cardinal Staff and SMU News Service.”

Seem strange? It is. In fact, to my memory, there has never been a by-line not by a specifically-named editor, staff writer or guest writer in the history of the Cardinal.

So what happened? The article in question was completely re-written by members of the university administration at approximately 8 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 16 —a few hours before our Wednesday deadline.

I wrote the original article. I had interviewed a university vice president Monday morning for the story; I wrote the article Tuesday morning, and, per the VP’s request, sent it to him to be looked over before it went to print. Tuesday evening, I was called into a meeting with three university vice presidents about the article. In the meeting, I was informed that the article I had written would need to be changed. Not because of factual error; the VP’s agreed the story I had written was largely correct. They said they were concerned about a few phrases, and wanted to change some of the wording to make things more clear. I agreed to their changes, and left the meeting under the assumption that much of the original article would remain intact. After I left, however, “a few changes” transformed into a completely re-written story, which, though including largely the same information as the original, had nothing of the original text.

At this point, it was merely hours before our deadline. Our editing staff was faced with a difficult decision: run the re-written, administration approved article OR leave half a page of blank space. We chose to run the article, with the amended by-line.

I am not upset because the article was my own; frankly, I have no particular attachment to the story or its topic. I am upset and concerned about what an action like this means for the future of the Cardinal, our writers and the SMU community. Because SMU funds the Cardinal, members of the administration have the right to, in effect, “censor” the paper and any article that may appear in it. When I accepted the position as editor in chief, I understood this as a possibility. However, seeing an actual act of censorship play out, especially about an issue that is so seemingly trivial, makes this power seem much more authoritative and, in this case, unnecessary.

The Cardinal will continue to fight for stories that are factual, of interest to the SMU community and, most importantly, written by student journalists. In the future, I hope the administration will be less intrusive towards this goal.