In the fall, QU launches our 100% online master’s program in interactive communication. It’s a really cool program for those who are interested in making the shift to online media production—especially management and social media. The courses are taken one at a time at an accelerated pace, and the degree can be finished in two years.
Happy to answer questions about this. My guess is that we will draw mainly from professionals in New England to start, where Quinnipiac has a stronger regional reputation, but I would love to draw students from elsewhere in the world. Heck, the weak dollar has got to be good for something.
If you have any questions about the program, comment below, or drop me an email. For now, check out the program brochure.
The administration at Quinnipiac, uncomfortable with some of the stories reported by their students in the campus newspaper, has taken a series of steps to gain closer control over the content of the paper. They have clearly indicated that they want student media to be independent of the university, but what this really means is unclear. In the nearer term, they established a task force with no faculty or student membership to set out a path for student media. Their plan, as it was recently articulated, was that the administration should hand-pick students to run the paper, putting a business student in the role of “publisher,” with control over editorial content.
The readers of this blog generally come from the fields of journalism or communication, and don’t need to be told just how stupid this looks to the outside world. Unfortunately, there remain those in the administration at Quinnipiac who not only refuse to acknowledge how much damage this incident has done to the reputation of the institution, they refuse to listen to their own faculty’s expert guidance on the matter. This week, the Faculty Senate voted unanimously that the administration should suspend any planned changes until a more appropriate plan could be assembled. The president responded with a letter decrying not the vote so much as the fact that it was made public. That the senate operates publicly seems to be lost on our president, who while otherwise very effective, has nonetheless put himself on the wrong side of an important issue, and decided to dig his heals in rather than work with Quinnipiac’s faculty and students to come up with a workable solution.
It is perhaps ironic that the best source of information on the issue has consistently been the Yale Daily News. In a recent article, they note that a large number of Chronicle staff have deserted the newspaper, and plan to strike forth with their own online newspaper. It’s a shame to see the Chronicle go. The credibility of our journalism program has already taken a hit, and continues to get bludgeoned by the tone-deaf policies of our administration. I only hope that the students make a good run of their venture, and that it serves them and our community well. I don’t know the students involved, but I publicly volunteer to assist them in any way I can be of help.
Now the question becomes whether the administration will move on to strangle our television and radio stations, as well. If we keep telling our best and brightest students that we don’t want them working under a Quinnipiac masthead, I suspect growing numbers of them will take the hint, and choose universities with real communities that nurture their students and involve them in decision-making.
It’s funny that I should have to turn to another publication to learn more about my own university, particularly a university that is (and prides itself on being) so small and community oriented. It’s too bad our own Chronicle isn’t writing stories that are equally as revealing. Today they are running a story entitled “A Private College Builds on Its Confidence” (available to subscribers here).
The article provided an interesting outsider’s perspective, since our president refused to comment on it. (Why? Beats me.) Although I have heard some talk of tightening our collective belts a bit in the coming years, I didn’t realize why. It seems we have maxed out our credit cards in order to facilitate our expansion to two new campuses.
Now, the expansion is absolutely necessary. Over the last few years our enrollment has continued to grow, and we are still a tuition-driven institution. We need the buildings to house our new students, and we need the new students to pay off the buildings. It’s a pretty classic set of demands that really require us to get bigger if we want to get better.
I don’t worry about the financial position of the university, which the article suggests may be precarious. Nothing wagered, nothing gained, and the reputation of the university has increased substantially even in the short time I’ve been here. Our standards are also increasing, though not as rapidly. Don’t get me wrong, I think students here get a very good education. Can you get a better education at a larger state university? I think you probably can, with a lot of effort and luck and dedication. Will you? Probably not. I think if you compare the average student in our programs with the average student of most large schools (public and private) you will find that our students learn significantly more in their time here, and are far better prepared to enter the workforce. My concern is not the finances directly, but what it might mean for the quality of our education, and of our student body.
The article suggests that Quinnipiac is banking on continued enrollment growth, during a period when college enrollment is predicted to decline. If it turns out that we cannot sustain that enrollment and continue to increase the standards for admission, I fear that we will lower our requirements for admission; the economic conditions would require it. Tuition is already steep, at nearly $40,000 a year, and with housing costs on top of that, I don’t think the market would bear an increase in tuition. So this means that we would be forced to admit students who are not as capable. Moreover, if we follow the pattern of other universities, that means tracking students who are less capable into degree programs designed to accept them, while concentrating the brightest students in programs meant to be standard-bearers. The university has already started down this path, picking out programs that have the potential for “national prominence” due to their “excellence.” This leads naturally to those in departments not picked for “excellence” to feel a lot less enthusiastic about expansion; one of my colleagues has suggested that if we have “excellence” programs, the others should remain “proud of their mediocrity.”
The other worrying statistic revealed in the article is that the university plans to expand its faculty by 45, or about 9% during a period when it expects graduate and undergraduate admissions to grow 20%. This, to me, seems especially worrying. During a period, for example, when Fordham has announced it plans to move undergraduate teaching loads to 3-2, Quinnipiac has increased the graduate program teaching load to 4-4. Now, I’m not teaching 4-4 (far from it), but even with all the caveats, having to tell applicants that is our teaching load is a hard sell. It’s made easier by the fact that our classes remain small, but that is also threatened by the necessary growth of the student body.
From a more personal perspective, I don’t particularly care where the university places its focus; obviously I want my own work and my own program to be “excellent.” Actually, I’ve decided—unilaterally—that if the journalism and PR programs in our school are targets of excellence, the interactive communication program (in which I mainly teach), should target “awesomeness.” Excellence is easy, dare to be awesome. Unfortunately, since the “awesomeness program” is only in my head, it may not translate to resources at the university level. I should say, that certainly is not the problem now. The Interactive Communications program has been very well supported and nurtured by the School and the University. But as pressures increase, I’m sure it’s better if you are thought of as a target for national prominence.
There is always a drive to increase enrollment in every university. I would hate to think that the cost of the expansion of facilities would drive down our admissions standards. There is always an alternative to expanding outward, and that is capping (or reducing) the incoming class size, and increasing the quality of the faculty and instruction. I would far prefer Quinnipiac became a tiny, elite institution than it became a giant, fairly good private university.
In any case, it is exciting to be at a school that is changing so rapidly, and that seems to prize entrepreneurism within. After nearly two years, I have to admit that I am continuing to try to find my place, and constantly finding my assumptions—based on teaching elsewhere—fail me in understanding the culture of the place. I know for certain that Quinnipiac in five years will look nothing like it does today, and although I can sympathize greatly with those for whom this idea is worrying, I am instead excited to see what those changes might bring, and eager to put my own thumbprint on a program that strives for awesomeness.
I haven’t blogged about the ongoing saga of the Quinnipiac Chronicle, our student paper, which is facing administrative censorship. An editorial printed in the paper lays out the problems: efforts to constrain the way the paper represents the university and its policies. The president doesn’t like how his position has been portrayed in the paper, and the editor has been told it is not appropriate for him to criticize Quinnipiac policy, even when such policy hinders the way in which the newspaper operates. There are other issues, and like any sort of conflict, it’s a lot more gray than black-and-white. What is clear is that the university administration has taken a position that is regressive, and that hurts our reputation as a School of Communication, and, of course, our reputation as a university.
Tin Foil Hat
I have a pet theory. The president of the university, John Lahey, is nothing if not public relations-savvy. What is the guaranteed way of getting publicity for your campus newspaper? Threaten to shut it down, let things stew for a while, then make a firm statement that clearly endorses the autonomy of the newspaper. Think of this as a kind of “Pentagon Papers” for our own little newspaper. In a year the Chronicle may be seen as a beacon of student activist journalism, simultaneously propelling our journalism program to national prominence and dispelling the idea that the Quinnipiac campus is particularly apathetic.
It’s almost a given. If you want publicity, threaten the editor of the university paper when he criticizes an administrative policy. Even better, make sure that the president is directly involved. This is like sending an email to journalists saying “free hooks.” And at least a few of those journalists have bitten. An article appeared last Sunday in the New York Times detailing the conflict, and another article appeared earlier this week in Inside Higher Ed.
On the Other Hand?
On first blush, it looks like there is little to prop up the administration’s position. They offer two issues. The first is that they claim that things have been misquoted or taken out of context in Chronicle articles. This is almost certainly the case: after all, newspapers always fail at incorporating what everyone would like to see in the paper. Newspapers cannot please all of the people all of the time.
However, I am particularly cognizant of this criticism because of an exchange that occurred on this blog. I noted a quote in the Chronicle that seemed odd, and the person quoted argued that she never said what the paper said she said, or that if she did it was taken out of context. She complained to the paper, and the automatic response in these cases—the ethical response—is at the very least to make clear to the readership that the quoted individual disputed the article’s quotation. When I read a response on this blog that suggested that the paper was unwilling to do this, it raised serious flags for me: journalistic ethics require that reporters and editors are sensitive and responsive to their audiences and their sources. I think this is something that the paper should take seriously, and review their procedures for handling complaints about quotes and either publishing retractions or letters from sources contesting the quotation.
The second issue, which comes in a letter from the administration to faculty that I will not quote, suggests that there is an issue of legal liability: if the newspaper publishes content that is libelous, or that reveals protected information about the student (presumably issues protected by FERPA), the university could be held liable. I won’t hold them to this argument, since it seems not only misguided, but potentially damaging. If they are suggesting that by publishing the paper they are editorially responsible for it, I think they are setting them up for a fall down the road. It is almost inevitable that a media outlet will at least be threatened with lawsuit at some point. Even this lowly blog has received such threats from more than one corner. Does the administration really want it on record that they think they have an oversight role in determining content in the paper? If they assert such a role now, it will lead to a lot of back-peddling if and when the paper is sued and the administration tries to wash its hands of culpability.
In the end, what needs to happen is a clear statement from the administration that they have no interest or desire in acting as a censor for the newspaper. That is a vital first step. The second issue—whether university officials are allowed to speak to student journalists directly—is important to the quality of the education QU students receive, but if the administration chooses not to speak to the press, internal or external, there isn’t much that can be done about it. In some ways, the worst possible public relations is limiting your relations with the public. As the university seeks to become better known nationally and internationally, it needs to abandon parochial views and embrace a role that is very much in the public eye.
All of this comes back to an instigating issue. A number of racial epithets were scrawled on the doors of black students’ dorm rooms and elsewhere on campus. In some sick way, this makes Quinnipiac quite a bit like some other major campuses, where racial insensitivity is rising. Unfortunately, it represented yet another black eye for Quinnipiac, in part because of a (correct) impression that it is not particularly diverse. Quinnipiac ranks among the “top” ten whitest law schools in the US, and despite some interesting efforts, many of the students are strikingly unaware of the world outside of this little slice of the eastern seaboard, or outside of their own neighborhoods. It is important that the president not sweep racism under the carpet; like many social ills, it racism breeds best when kept under wraps, quiet, and unchecked. Many students on campus reacted against the racial incidents that occurred, and it is important to reflect the tolerance of our community proudly. We need to demonstrate our beliefs publicly, and conversations with our president should be equally open and public.
What Doesn’t Kill Us
As I said, I am hopeful that good can come out of this incident. As one commentator has noted, this act has energized otherwise placid students at Quinnipiac. She notes this rather ominous YouTube posting, suggesting that there is an undercurrent of activism on campus:
If there is such an undercurrent, it is well hidden. Many of the differences between this campus newspaper and that at the The Daily at the University of Washington are night and day, in part because the latter has successfully navigated efforts at censorship. It’s about page proudly trumpets its independence:
The Daily is the independent student newspaper for the University of Washington. The Daily is produced exclusively by students, with the exception of four non-student UW staff members who provide fiscal and administrative assistance. Any UW student may work for The Daily and will be paid for their work.
All content and advertising is approved by student staff members with no interference by UW staff or administration for an uncensored press. No non-student staff members review editorial content before publication.
A nine-member Board of Student Publications oversees the newspaper, reviews finances, resolves disputes and selects the editor and advertising manager. The board is comprised of representatives from UW administration, the Faculty Senate, the Department of Communication, ASUW, GPSS, a professional publication and The Daily newsroom.
The Daily began as the Pacific Wave in 1891. It became The Daily in 1909 when the paper began publishing five days a week. The Monday edition of the paper was dropped in 1933 during The Great Depression. The Monday publication resumed in 1985 and has run on schedule ever since.
The uncensored approach to student journalism has been controversial at times, but the First Amendment and Supreme Court decisions guarantee this right for students at the University of Washington.
Former UW Communications professor, Don Pember, stated “While freedom of expression has been considered a basic right for the press in this country for nearly 200 years, this right was not articulated for college and high school newspapers until quite recently. Until the 1960s, college and high school journalists enjoyed about as much freedom of expression as the newspaper’s advisor, the high school principal or the college dean was willing to allow.”
In the 1967 Supreme Court decision Dickey vs. Alabama, it was ruled “censorship of school papers is allowed only when the exercise of freedom of speech interferes materially and substantially with the requirement of appropriate discipline and order in the school.”
It remains as the law today.
UW faculty, staff and students can be proud that this university was a pioneer in clarifying the freedom of student press and that University presidents have defended that Constitutional freedom ever since.
The Daily won the Apple Award at the 2006 College Media Adviser Spring Convention in New York City for the best overall four-year college tabloid-sized newspaper in the nation.
Obviously, The Daily has about a century of a head start on the Quinnipiac Chronicle, but I hope that the current efforts to curtail its freedom act as a kind of annealing process, giving student media on campus a more common set of values and objectives.
Jimmy Carter was on campus to receive an award as part of the Albert Schweitzer Institute’s activities. Our student paper led with a quote from one of our students who attended Carter’s speech:
“I am an advocate of war, but after hearing his speech, I do not understand why people would ever want the use of nuclear weapons,” said Carley Shimkus, a junior journalism major.
I was floored when I read that. Did one of our students actually say “I am an advocate of war.” Who says that?
Update (Oct 12): Be sure to see Carley’s reaction in the comments below.
OK, not really; just an inflammatory headline. I think it’s great that they’ve opened up the site and are letting others build it. It seems like a model (cf. eBay, YouTube, Second Life) that is bankable.
But what is a pain is that I can’t tell them what classes I’m teaching, because my home program—the MS in Interactive Communications—isn’t listed at Quinnipiac. They are using the old name: e-Media. That’s nothing new, my last program—the Masters in Informatics at UB—also wasn’t listed, if I recall correctly. So, I figured I would ask. Here’s the reply:
Hi Alex,
Thanks for the suggestion. We will certainly keep it in
mind as we continue to improve the site.
Thanks for contacting Facebook,
Lucy
Customer Support Representative
Facebook
Hmmm. Form letter, anyone? I don’t begrudge them a form letter—I’m sure that they are busy these days. But when I have taught courses where students listed themselves as participants, it’s pretty cool for the students and for me.
So, here’s hoping that they really do make the change. Until then, I guess I’ll be the only person in a couple of e-Media courses.
Quinnipiac University annually presents the Fred Friendly Award to honor those who have shown courage in defending free speech, and getting us the news we depend on as a democracy. Past winners have included many of the top broadcasters in the United States, including folks like Tom Brokaw and Jim Lehrer. This year’s honoree was Steve Kroft.
The award dinner was tonight at the Metropolitan Club, and though I was lucky enough to receive an invite, it was not clearly “and guest,” so I decided to shy away this year. Next year, though, assuming I am lucky enough to score another invite, I’ll make my way out. It’s cool that my School does this, I think—honoring journalists is something we deserve to be proud of. I know who I would vote for next year, though it may not be considered a “safe” choice.
Update (5/23): Oops: it’s a lunch, not a dinner :).