Nlnews.org: Fighting for the values of honesty, fairness and the free pursuit of truth in journalism, at North Central University (NCU) and beyond (formerly representing North Central's student newspaper, the Northern Light)

Fighting for the values of honesty, fairness and the free pursuit of truth
in journalism, at North Central University and beyond

Letter to administration: 7 reasons why the editorial staff of The Northern Light has chosen to shut down the newspaper rather than give in to demands for censorship

April 6, 2006

To our administrators and university leaders:

We, the undersigned, respectfully submit the following reasons why we believe we have no choice but to stop producing The Northern Light. Our hearts are grieved because we do not believe we can obey your demands without violating the principles that we hold from Scripture. We submit the following reasons in hope that you will change your decision on this matter, but failing that, we hope that at the least you will understand the weight of our convictions.

1) It is morally wrong to lie to our readers

As journalists and as Christians, it is our goal to be speakers of the truth in everything we do.

The word “truth” is used in the NIV Bible more than 200 times. References to liars and lying appear more than 350 times. Clearly this is a concept of great importance in Scripture. Proverbs 12:19 & 23 state, “Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue lasts only a moment. ... The Lord detests lying lips, but he delights in men who are truthful.”

When a reader picks up a copy of The Northern Light, he or she enters an unwritten contract with the newspaper’s editors and writers. That contract states that the newspaper will represent a neutral viewpoint in its news coverage and a free forum for discussion and debate in its opinion section.

Readers expect journalists everywhere to honor that contract at all costs. Readers expect and deserve to make up their own minds about important issues in the news without the reporter giving an unfair advantage to one side. Readers expect and deserve to be allowed to freely respond to those issues in the opinion section of the newspaper.

When an editorial staff breaks this contract with its readers, it is effectively lying to them. Without clearly stating in a prominent place in the newspaper that the publication is censored, readers cannot be expected to understand that the objectivity of the publication has been compromised. Yet such a statement would be viewed as disrespectful by you.

By asking us to break our contract with readers and allow our newspaper to be censored both in news coverage and opinion content, you are asking us to lie. As Christians, we cannot in good conscience choose to lie to our readers.

2) It is morally wrong to give an unfair advantage to one side

As Christians, we hold to the truth of Scripture. We support the doctrinal stances taken by our university and denomination. However, we do not believe the news section is the place to argue for those beliefs. We respect that our readers will use discernment when reading the news section and, with the help of the Holy Spirit and Scripture, be able to make up their minds for themselves. We believe the opinion section is the place to argue for those beliefs. However, we do not believe our arguments should be made to the exclusion of others who disagree. We believe that by allowing an open forum for discussion and debate, we will ultimately further the truth, not harm it. For, if it is really the truth, it will rise above any arguments made against it. And through exposure to opposing opinions, our readers will be able to better understand and articulate why they believe differently.

In Proverbs 1, Solomon prologues his book of wisdom with several statements of purpose. One, found in verse 3, states, “for acquiring a disciplined and prudent life, doing what is right and just and fair.” In Matthew 7:12, Jesus charges us, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”

As Christians, we hold passionately to our beliefs. That’s why we defend our principles so strongly. Our model is Scripture, and Scripture is clear that fairness and justice to others are essential requirements for followers of God. Scripture is also clear that we should treat others with the same respect and dignity that we ourselves expect.

On all these counts, we believe we are called by God as journalists to provide equal opportunity for all sides of an argument. If we deviate from this charge, we taint our witness, because we become no better than those of the world who bias themselves against us. If we truly are assured that we know the truth, then we must never deviate from a course that allows that truth to be challenged. By stifling those who disagree with us, not only do we become hypocrites, but we ultimately weaken the truth by not allowing our readers to be challenged to understand why what they believe is right and what others believe is wrong. We also fail to demonstrate the love of the Golden Rule to those of the world.

Your demands for censorship violate these Scriptural standards of fairness and love, forcing us to irreparably damage our objectivity to the advantage of one side over another. While we defend our doctrinal beliefs with vigor, we just as vehemently defend the right of others to disagree with those beliefs and still be treated with the same respect we expect for ourselves.

3) These principles of fairness and truth apply equally to all, including administration

We respect your desire to teach students the truth of Scripture as you see it, and desire to further that desire, not hinder it. However, we cannot further that desire at the expense of our Scriptural principles of fairness and truth.

Based on these principles, we vehemently defend the right of all to express their opinions through the campus newspaper. We encourage members of all opinions to exercise that right, including members of administration. We just as vigorously defend your right as administrators to express your viewpoints through the campus newspaper as any opposing view. However, administration has chosen not to exercise that right.

We believe you could accomplish your goals just as well by submitting commentaries to the newspaper as by seeking to forcibly take it over and censor it.

We have proven our commitment to defending the expression of all views, not just our own. We have never withheld a letter to the editor that opposes our journalistic practices or staff editorials.

4) By seeking to censor the newspaper, administrators are changing the rules that they themselves created

Any campus newspaper at a private university faces a dilemma: it’s mission is to report on the organization that owns it. This makes for touchy situations when determining how to remain objective in reporting.

The Northern Light staff recognizes and defends the right of the university to oversee the student newspaper. We are students, after all, and students need supervision, both to foster the learning process as well as prevent errors that might be made by novices.

The university already possesses a system to address these conflicts of interest, however. That system involves the delegation of a newspaper adviser as the mediator between administration and the newspaper staff.

The adviser’s role is partly to assure that administration is not controlling reportage on itself, a clear violation of reporter objectivity. On the other hand, the adviser’s role is also to represent the concerns of administration by making sure the school is not being misrepresented or represented unfairly.

In a system working as it was designed, the adviser should act as an independent representative, embodying the concerns of both administration and the student reporters. This allows a campus newspaper to remain objective while not posing a serious legal and public relations risk to the university.

By seeking to forcibly censor the newspaper, you are changing the rules that you yourselves created. You are irreparably damaging the independent role of the adviser to serve as a go-between for both sides.

Rather than violate the system you yourselves set in place, you ought to reinforce and support it. Instead, you have threatened the jobs of people within the system who have acted as mediators, compromising the ability of those people to do their jobs as you originally asked them to. You have threatened the newspaper’s editor-in-chief with dismissal from her position if she does not acquiesce.

We believe it is immoral for administration to threaten people’s jobs over an issue of personal conscience and principle.

We believe it is wrong for you to seek to compromise reporter objectivity by censoring articles about yourselves, rather than utilize the adviser system that you created to address this very problem.

5) We respect the authority of our administration, but we cannot obey that authority when it demands that we violate the Scriptural principles to which we adhere

One accusation you have made against us is that we are disrespecting your spiritual authority by choosing not to acquiesce to your demands. We disagree with this assertion on several levels.

First, we have tried to respect your demands as much as we possibly can without violating our consciences. We have allowed articles to be delayed until administration felt able to comment on the record. We have allowed the head of the public relations department to pre-read articles on Soulforce. We have refrained from publishing our objections before now, in hope that we could reach a compromise. We have tried our best to work with administration through discussion and compromise, but we have never been willing to completely disregard our moral convictions for the sake of preserving the university’s public relations.

Second, we believe Scripture not only encourages but demands that we question our authorities and hold them accountable to a biblical standard. Jesus did this with the Jewish leaders of Israel, the equivalent of our church leaders today. The prophets of the Old Testament consistently challenged the decisions of the spiritual authorities. The New Testament witness commands us to submit to our authorities, but it also tells us to hold them to a biblical standard. The two are not mutually exclusive. Warnings to be careful of false teachers are many, showing that we are not called simply to mindlessly accept what our authorities demand, but to judge it according to Scripture. While we do not consider our leaders false teachers, we believe the testimony of Scripture is clear in that we are called to hold our leaders to a biblical standard.

1 Timothy 5:19-21 recognize that there are times when leaders should be questioned—even rebuked—and that all should be done with impartiality: “Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning. I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.”

Third, we recognize that there are respectful and disrespectful ways to disagree with and question our authorities. We do not, however, believe that the very act of disagreeing by itself constitutes disrespect. We believe methods of disagreement are open to debate on how respectful they are, but we do not believe the very ability to disagree is open to debate. Yet, by censoring the newspaper, you are removing the very ability of readers to disagree with you. Scriptural charges on respecting leaders do not forbid the act of calling for change in the church or disagreeing with the decision of a leader; they forbid doing so in a disrespectful manner.

1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 embody this principle, telling us to test what we are told according to Scripture: “Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.”

Fourth, we do not believe the Scriptural charge to submit to authorities includes acts of submission that violate other Scriptural principles. By demanding that we take an action in direct opposition to our biblical principles, you have forced us to choose between obedience to you and obedience to God.

6) Censorship is counterproductive to an education in journalism

As journalism students, we believe our education is irreparably hindered when student journalists are forced to violate the Scriptural principles of their field in order to satisfy administration. Journalists are supposed to learn how to objectively report all sides of an issue without one of those sides controlling what they say. By pre-reading and editing articles we write about you, you are preventing us from learning how to act as impartial journalists. By making the editing decisions yourselves, you are preventing us from learning how to make the tough editing decisions we will face in the field. Effectively, you are writing the articles yourselves instead of allowing us to learn how to write using the impartial standards of journalism.

Again, as in reason 4 above, the adviser role exists to allow students to act as objective journalists while still retaining the important supervisory role that students need. By usurping this role, you, our administrators, are not only acting immorally, but you are also depriving us of a quality education.

7) Freedom of speech is beneficial to the truth, not detrimental

We believe that by considering opposing viewpoints in the defense of truth, the ultimate truth will come out stronger than if opposing viewpoints are stifled and established doctrine and leadership decisions are accepted mindlessly. Thus, by protecting an open forum for discussion and debate, we believe we are benefitting the truth of Scripture, not hindering it. If what we believe really is the ultimate truth, then that truth will rise above arguments against it. In addition, we will be better off by understanding those who disagree with us and therefore better able to articulate our beliefs to them.

By holding you, our leaders, accountable to the principles of Scripture through an open forum, we believe we are respecting you more than if we were to never question your decisions. If our questions are presented respectfully and humbly, we believe we are fulfilling our duties as mandated by Scripture, not violating them. By allowing you, our leaders, the chance to face questions on your decisions, we help you fulfill your responsibilities as leaders. If you are right in your decision, you have the chance to address those who disagree with you, making your decision stronger still. If you are in error, you have the opportunity to change your decision in light of arguments you may not have previously considered.

We believe the freedoms of speech and information benefit everyone in our community by encouraging critical thought and accountability, both in leadership and the student body. Suppressing these freedoms is equal to suppressing these two values.

Conclusion

Given the reasons listed above, we believe we have no alternative but to stop producing The Northern Light until we are able to do so without violating the principles of Scripture. We recognize the university’s legal right to censor the newspaper, but we believe it is morally wrong for it to do so. We also believe it is morally wrong for administration to disrespect our Scripturally-based moral convictions by forcing us to either violate them or face disciplinary action.

1 Peter 5:1-3 reads as follows: “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.”

We believe that a university which values public relations more than the welfare of its students and their principles is acting in error according to Scripture. With spirits grieved by what we have experienced, we beg that you reconsider the choice you have made regarding this matter.

Signed,

Hope Bahr, editor-in-chief

Chuck Bahr, news editor

Sarah Abbott, sports editor

David Kingsbury, opinion editor

Andre Triplett, photography editor

Jon Porter, staff writer & former variety editor