Student media will not lose funding

Monday, February, 15, 2010; 10:48 PM | 32 | | Print

Share


TOPICS: csa emcvt commenting

Related: PDF version of the CSA resolution, and EMCVT's response.

Virginia Tech will not revoke funding to the Collegiate Times and other student media endeavors, contrary to the proposal a Tech advisory group laid out last Friday.

“The university is not going to exercise administrative leverage to pressure the Collegiate Times,” said university spokesman Larry Hincker. “The chief legal counsel made clear that the actions (the Commission on Student Affairs) were asking for is not permissible under the law.”

The Commission on Student Affairs had recommended the university ban student organizations from buying ads with university funds as well. The proposed financial cutbacks resulted from a controversy over anonymous reader comments posted to the Collegiate Times Web site.

The CSA sent a letter early last week to Kelly Wolff, general manager of the Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech. The letter stated the Collegiate Times may be in violation of the university’s “Principles of Community” for its online commenting process, and declared that if the organization did not agree to negotiate the status of the commenting, the commission would recommend action be taken by the university.

“In the Principles of Community, there is language talking about holding people with dignity and respect and having a civil tone,” said Ed Spencer, vice president for student affairs. “The commission members have been saying that if we’re going to publish comments, they ought to be consistent with letters to the editor so people in a civil community can be held responsible.”

Spencer said the CSA and Collegiate Times began to discuss the current comment system, among other things, last semester. Spencer noted interest was generated again after a more recent article in the CT.

“The interest got sparked again when some of the online comments came back in response to the article about the diversity summit,” Spencer said. “Commission members realized it was still going on and that’s why they asked to sit down and talk with the staff again about it.”

Wolff claimed EMCVT would pursue legal action if the university followed through on the recommendations and rejected the offer to negotiate resolution.

“Our role was to ensure that students’ editorial rights were defended,” Wolff said.

She added that the effect of a funding cut would likely not extend as much to the Collegiate Times as it would to other student media organizations, such as WUVT, VTTV, and the Silhouette literary magazine.

“Really, it would not have much impact on the Collegiate Times operations,” Wolff said. “It earns enough revenue to support itself.”

Spencer said he was present at the first meeting in which more serious legislation was considered, noting his most prominent role was to explain the nature of the relationship between EMCVT and Tech, as well as its history.

Spencer said the Collegiate Times currently receives free office space in Squires Student Center and $70,000 annually from Tech, among other things. The contract does not have an explicit end date. Wolff said it “continues in full force and effect until one part gives 24 months notice of the intent to non-renew/negotiate.”

“It’s not the sort of thing you want to subject to the whims of this administrator or that administrator,” Wolff said. “It needs to be very stable.”

Continue Reading: 12 Next » 

A version of this article appeared in the Feb 16 issue of the Collegiate Times.

Leave a comment 32 Comments Write a letter to the editor

Anonymous | # February 16, 2010 @ 9:40 AM — Flag Comment

sounds like a form of censorship

Reply to this Top


Kelly Wolff | # February 16, 2010 @ 12:03 PM — Flag Comment

I now regret that I cried wolf (see, I can be funny too) so quickly and didn't hear what commission members wanted to say. It would have been better for all of us to have a dialog. I do care about what students think, and my comment here is an example of how well our comment section works.

Kelly
x

Reply to this Top


C. Steger | # February 16, 2010 @ 12:10 PM — Flag Comment

I'm proud of the Hokie Nation and all its members, regardless of how they act under the cloak of anonymity.


Charles Steger
x

Reply to this Top


Tonia Moxley | # February 16, 2010 @ 12:16 PM — Flag Comment

I share Kelly's regret of acting hastily and not learning more about the disagreement between the Commission on Student Affairs and the Collegiate Times before commenting on it. It was just too tempting to write a sensationalist piece. I'm glad the CT has this comment section where we can set things straight. Right?

Tonia

Reply to this Top


John | # February 16, 2010 @ 12:59 PM — Flag Comment

I think it's clear that some are upset about the ruling...given the posters above. Clearly they are not happy with the outcome, and frankly, I say too bad.

The whole idea of anonymity thrives on the internet. Look at any major newspaper, blogs, etc. People have more power and say things they wouldn't otherwise say if they had their real name listed. Is it unfortunate that these things happen? Yes. Should it be controlled by someone? No.

If you are taking posts on the internet personally, then it seems like you need to look somewhere else for sympathy.

Reply to this Top


Buzz | # February 16, 2010 @ 3:55 PM — Flag Comment

It appears as if the Div. of Student Affairs was again trying to unilaterally impose their "unjust" will, as they've done in the past against several previous colleagues.

Each of the responsibility bullets identified on the Div. of Student Affairs webpage should not be just mere words, but actually be upheld and practiced by everyone.

And always remember: what goes around, comes around!!

Reply to this Top


Monika Gibson | # February 16, 2010 @ 5:29 PM — Flag Comment

In defense of the Division of Student Affairs, it had nothing to do with this dispute. The Division did not try to impose any will on anyone. The Commission on Student Affairs, with its membership of students representing many major and smaller student organizations, faculty and staff, expressed concerns about the on-line commenting system of the CT, and attempted to use some leverage to get the CT to engage in a real dialog. There was never a threat to prohibit advertisement in the CT; rather, there was a recommendation to potentially restrict certain (student activities fees) funds to be used for advertising in the CT.

Reply to this Top


C. Steger | # February 16, 2010 @ 5:57 PM — Flag Comment

Stop impersonating me, or you're in big trouble young man.

Charles Steger
x

Reply to this Top


C. Steger | # February 16, 2010 @ 6:58 PM — Flag Comment

I'm the real Charles Steger. This is entirely inappropriate for the comments section for the CT. You two jerks should be ashamed of yourselves.

Charles Steger
x

Reply to this Top


hokienomics | # February 17, 2010 @ 9:22 AM — Flag Comment

How much school money is wasted on commissions like this one or the one they formed on Alcohol use at tailgate parties? Aren't we having a budget crisis? Aren't there better things for the school to focus on than anonymous comments that no one reads?

Reply to this Top


Ed | # February 17, 2010 @ 9:22 AM — Flag Comment

The bottom line is that "recommendation" was a threat, pure and simple. I've read these documents and shared with a wide audience of fellow university staff - we're all outraged that a committee would attempt to stifle the right to anonymous free speech, particularly by the use of coercion. This is the same tactic used by the Mafia to extort "protection" money. "It sure would be a shame if..."

I do want to compliment Larry Hincker on the University's reply - you said what we wanted to hear.

Reply to this Top


PJ | # February 17, 2010 @ 4:57 PM — Flag Comment

To readers of the CT, it is evident that there has been a real dialogue, described more than once in columns like this one: http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/14739/moderating-comments-an-ongoing-concern-of-the-ct It just seems the CSA didn't like the outcome and doesn't acknowledge that there are many different opinions on the anonymity issue.

Reply to this Top


Anonymous | # February 17, 2010 @ 8:17 PM — Flag Comment

Wow, what a convenient way to shut down criticism as April 16 trials are coming. Great idea Ed Spencer, "withdraw their support of the media association"! (yeah, he said it, see the "commission" minutes linked in the PDF.) It's way too much trouble to have dissent and VT employees criticizing the fact that you didn't follow your own emergency protocols. Just put an end to it by banning anonymous comments! Love, one of your staff

Reply to this Top


Rob Perry | # February 17, 2010 @ 10:59 PM — Flag Comment

I am glad Virginia Tech's administration responded quickly to an ill-advised direction proposed by the Commission of Student Affairs. I do agree with the need for a dialogue within and about the university community; however, using part of the organizational governance structure, advisory or not, to exert or force that dialogue is inappropriate. I believe we at EMCVT responded directly and proportionally to assure students' rights were protected.

Moreover, I think the core of the issue highlights the need for administrators and staff of public education institutions to go beyond any "student affairs education" and embrace the fact they are also public administrators. This notion implies knowing when issues are of constitutional concern and when they are not. I was shocked to see some members of the administration did not realize or acknowledge the fundamental constitutional rights that were concerned. For issues that step on speech and expression the University and its commissions must always review then with strict scrutiny, in the least.

My greatest concern was the lack of any deliberative, in-depth thought given to the Commission's decision to attempt to enforce the speech code espoused by the Principle of Community. We are students, faculty, staff, and participants of a community of higher education in a constitutional republic - we should know better.

Here's to future dialogue versus monologue.

Reply to this Top


VT Fan | # February 18, 2010 @ 12:06 AM — Flag Comment

If you're not willing to sign your name to a comment you want to make, you should keep your mouth shut. The problem with this is that people who want to criticize others and make highly inappropriate comments under the condition of anonymity are cowards. Virginia Tech is supposed to be better than that!

Reply to this Top


Brandon | # February 20, 2010 @ 3:55 PM — Flag Comment

OH THE DELICIOUS IRONY, MR. VTFAN!

Reply to this Top


Sara | # February 18, 2010 @ 1:22 AM — Flag Comment

Absolutely no money is wasted, as its run mostly by student representatives. Make sure you do some more research before you go lambasting an organization for inappropriate reasons. There is plenty to target from the actions of the CSA, but this certainly isn't one of them.

Also, are you no one? Obviously this statement is inaccurate as well.

Reply to this Top


anon | # February 18, 2010 @ 7:13 AM — Flag Comment

Well, there are a lot of faculty who spend time on it, and a secretary who writes up the trivia they talk about. We students are paying them to do that. While they spend there time at these meetings, they are not doing more useful things that might actually help us.

Reply to this Top


anon | # February 18, 2010 @ 7:14 AM — Flag Comment

Said by an anonymous poster.

Reply to this Top


Anonymous | # February 18, 2010 @ 11:40 AM — Flag Comment

Haha, flipping hysterical, how ever would one with the last name Wolffe think to use it as a pun...how original. We as a student body are glad you are in a leadership role to impart professionalism in all aspects of your position, not knee-jerk reactions, fairness, and a great sense of humor to your students.

Reply to this Top


C. Steger | # February 20, 2010 @ 3:54 PM — Flag Comment

Well, I thought it was pretty funny :(

Charles Steger
x

Reply to this Top


Anonymous | # February 19, 2010 @ 5:47 PM — Flag Comment

This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)

Reply to this Top


Anonymous | # February 19, 2010 @ 5:47 PM — Flag Comment

This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)

Reply to this Top


Anonymous | # February 19, 2010 @ 5:48 PM — Flag Comment

This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)

Reply to this Top


Anonymous | # February 19, 2010 @ 5:48 PM — Flag Comment

This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)

Reply to this Top


Anonymous | # February 19, 2010 @ 5:48 PM — Flag Comment

This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)

Reply to this Top


Anonymous | # February 19, 2010 @ 5:48 PM — Flag Comment

This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)

Reply to this Top


Solution | # February 21, 2010 @ 6:03 AM — Flag Comment

Shut off all comments and charge $10 month for online access to CT. You will get badly needed funds from 2 people and you won't have to worry about censorship online.

Reply to this Top


Working From Home issue | # November 6, 2010 @ 2:30 PM — Flag Comment

This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.

Top


wqdqwdqwdqwd | # July 10, 2011 @ 9:04 PM — Flag Comment

This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.

Top


qwwqfwqf | # July 10, 2011 @ 9:11 PM — Flag Comment

This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.

Top


pozycjonowanie www | # February 28, 2013 @ 2:32 AM — Flag Comment

This weblog is containing a fastidious information of humorous YouTube video clips, I loved it a lot. pozycjonowanie www http://www.fairbankscenter.org/index.php/member/31257/

Reply to this Top