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

President's prereading request is last straw in 'reign of fear'

Anderson already got what he wanted; who knew he would take it even farther?

By Chuck Bahr, former News Editor

It's been 10 years of struggle for Northern Light editors since Gordon Anderson became North Central's sixth president.

During that time Anderson has attempted on a number of occasions to use his position to exert editorial control over the student newspaper. He has also verbally berated at least one former editor, reducing her to tears, and indirectly questioned the salvation of another. A former adviser said he instructed editors never to go into a meeting with Anderson alone.

Still, despite seeing a dark side of Anderson much different from what students see in chapel, and despite seeing him use the clout of his position inappropriately to try and force his wishes on students, I was still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

After all, Anderson adheres to a philosophical view of journalism irreconcilably in opposition to the philosophical views of almost every student in the journalism program. He believes free speech rights are not biblical -- that it is not Scripturally acceptable for a newspaper to publish content that questions the decisions of authority figures.

Of course, such a view leaves one wondering what the purpose of a newspaper -- separate from a newsletter -- could be. But despite the very serious implications of such a philosophical undercutting of free speech (which I won't get into here since the question is addressed elsewhere), I was still willing to believe that President Anderson was genuine. Genuinely wrong, but genuine nonetheless.

Even after Anderson's administration finally achieved the president's ultimate goal -- complete editorial control over the newspaper -- I was still willing to have some faith in this man's character. I can respect someone who perpetuates very harmful philosophies if I feel that person is truly doing what he or she believes to be right. I don't respect the actions of such people, but I can still respect the person behind the actions.

But achieving his goal of censorship apparently wasn't enough for the president. Despite having every piece of the censorship machine firmly entrenched over the newspaper's interim staff, Anderson took matters a step further. He asked to pre-read the article that he himself helped stipulate as the top story for the next issue.

Apparently it wasn't enough to have free reign over the negative content in the newspaper. Anderson wanted control over the positive, feel-good content as well.

Apparently it wasn't safe enough to entrust the censorship to the school officials he had already designated for the role. He had to make sure personally that the newspaper read to his liking.

This action by Anderson is such an egregious abuse of his power that I question how he could have genuinely thought this was the right thing to do.

Censorship over potentially "rebellious" content? Fine. If you really believe it's rebellious, I guess it can make sense.

But to personally read -- and by logical extension, edit -- a writer's rough draft of an article about yourself? An article that you already know is only going to be positive and "feel-good" about yourself?

That blows my mind. I do not see how anyone, regardless of their philosophy, could see such an action as ethically responsible.

And by once again usurping the roles of lesser officials designated by the school for those roles, Anderson has shown his absolute disregard for any type of system of checks and balances to maintain even a semblance of objectivity.

Anderson struck where he would find no resistance -- a first-semester staff writer eager only to please and move up in the world. How is a lowly student staff writer supposed to turn down a personal request by the president of the school to read your article?

Anderson didn't even wait for the staff writer's student editor to see the article. He didn't wait for other school officials to see the article. No, he asked to see the article directly from the writer, in its first draft. What better way to exert your control than to go directly to the writer of the article and make changes even before the student editor sees it?

Such an action causes one to wonder what could possibly motivate the president of a university to go to such lengths. Shouldn't he have much, much more important things to do with his time? In a Dec. 13, 2005, feature article on his 10 years in office, Anderson estimated he spends 65 hours a week working in his office.

65 hours a week. And still you have time to personally request and read a copy of an article being written for the lowly student newspaper?

So what could have motivated Anderson to go to such lengths? The end doesn't justify the means by any practical argument. If he was truly concerned about the article's content, he already had the rest of his administration to preread it and contact him if needed.

The only conclusion I can reach is pride. Anderson already got what he wanted. Nothing in the newspaper was going to make him look bad, and nothing was going to bring in calls from donors on how the Northern Light is an "embarrassment" to the school.

But in his lust for control, Anderson took it a step further. He decided to personally preread an article that already painted him in a positive light and that he had already made sure would appear as the top story on the front page.

What good could it do? One answer that seems likely is this: to make sure Anderson looked as good in the article as possible. He would personally check to make sure he sounded as good as he wanted himself to appear to the public.

If this was truly his motive, such an action is absolutely unconscionable for any Christian, and exponentially more so for the president of a Christian university. Even if it was not his motive, a person in Anderson's position ought to know better than to go this far in compromising the objectivity of the editorial process.

I hope I am wrong. I admit I only have limited information on this matter, but the circumstances do not look good. From my experience at this school, Anderson has done all he can to establish a "reign of fear" where no one is allowed to question him without fear of disciplinary action, even to the extremes of losing one's job or being expelled.

It's time for the reign of fear to end. As Christians, we are called not to spread our message through fear and coercion, but through love and willingness to discuss our differences.

The reign of fear needs to end not only for faculty and students, but also for Anderson himself. Anyone who works so hard to prevent other's disapproval must be afraid of what will happen if disapproval occurs.

But if President Anderson's actions and beliefs are truly above reproach, then any attacks made against him will fall flat and he will be shown the better for it. And even if his actions or beliefs are questionable, he will show himself an honorable man by allowing people the freedom to question him and work through issues for themseleves. Ultimately, he will become all the more respected both by those who agree with him and by those who don't.

But to start, Anderson must show himself willing to allow his power to be censured when such censure's purpose is to preserve his own integrity and the integrity of his position. He must allow individuals other than himself to do the jobs they were entrusted to do.

Read the news release on Anderson's request.