[Eugene Volokh, October 29, 2008 at 12:42pm] Trackbacks
"Quinnipiac University Threatens Student Group for Associating with Off-Campus Newspaper":

So says FIRE, which I've generally found quite reliable on such matters, and its reproduction of a university official's letter seems pretty damning.

Does anyone know what's up with Quinnipiac here, and whether there's any justification for its action that I might be missing? As FIRE's Adam Kissel writes, "QU is a private university, and it may choose to prize certain values higher than freedom of the press and freedom of association. But what value is QU promoting here other than squelching criticism of the university?"

Profane (mail) (www):
On this, see:

Boston Globe Article

New York Times Editorial
10.29.2008 1:47pm
First Amendment Matters:
QU wants the student journalists to warn the administration before they expose problems on campus. The "no Internet before print" policy resulted from some sort of controversy involving the basketball team. The student newspaper posted an article, then nonstudent journalists saw it and called administrators for comment. (Apparently before the administrators were aware of the controversy.) In my opinion, the conduct of the QU administrators is inexcusable.

A damning quote from QU president John Lahey in this article: "I guess the challenge for us now is how in today’s world we can really have a good discussion with the students about important topics, but not have it be a press conference to the world, where I have absolutely no control."
10.29.2008 1:57pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
It sounds like there is no justification for QU's behavior, but at the same time I can understand the administration's desire to learn of problems before the press does. In any institution, it is usually desirable, and not just for purposes of ass-covering, to try to defuse problems before they become public since publicity tends to inflame things. Ideally one wants to create mechanisms that encourage internal resolution without preventing publicity where it is necessary to force the hand of an administration that is reluctant to deal with a problem, or is itself the problem.
10.29.2008 4:19pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Obviously responsible journalists would contact administrators for comment before writing a story. However, the whole thing really stinks of idiocy here.
10.29.2008 5:24pm
fortyninerdweet (mail):
One of the parties needs to be the "adult" here. Right now it looks like the QU administration is allowing The Quad staff to fulfill that role.
10.29.2008 6:27pm