University of Virginia Library

Start Pape

Stopping The Presses

The recent decision of the
Student Council's Organizations
and Publications Committee in
denying the Virginia Weekly funds
is a clear example of the excessive
broadness of a 1970 Board of
Visitors' resolution on which the
denial of funds was bused.

The operative portion of the
resolution defines propagandizing
as "any activity whose purpose is to
procure or prevent the acceptance
of any social, economic or political
theory... not... to include engaging
in non-partisan analysis, study or
research or making those results
available to the public."
"Propagandizing" groups are denied
funds.

Presumably such publications as
The Cavalier Daily, Law Weekly or
any other University publication
are exempt, since their purpose is
distinct from the prohibited type,
although they do endorse positions
of a political, social or economic
character as well as political
candidates.

The chief objection to the
Board's resolution and to the
Council's application is its
restrictive effect on the character of
the publications which can be
offered to the University
community with Student Activities
money.

Two Categories

For the sake of argument,
assume that there are two major
categories of newspapers as
determined by their theories of
operation: First, the paper that
strives for and publishes with the
pretense of objectivity. This is the
guiding principle of most papers,
the CD and the Daily Progress
representing this view locally, with
varying elements of success.

Secondly, the paper which
maintains no pretense of
objectivity, but instead has openly
adopted a particular political,
economic or social position and
additionally relies heavily on
personal journalism, wherein the
author infuses his opinions with the
factual aspect of the story. The
Village Voice is the best known
paper of this type.

The present regulations as set
forth in the Board resolution, bar
the use of funds for publications or
organizations falling into the
second category. Consequently,
unorthodox, unpopular, highly
objectionable viewpoints and
opinions are unavailable, save for
the limited exposure given in the
traditional or establishment press.

Double Standard

It is unclear why it is necessary
to deny funds to a publication such
as the Weekly or a right-wing paper
when students and the entire
readership are clearly and
unquestionably put on notice that a
certain outlook is maintained and
will be reflected in the articles. So
what if the Weekly relies entirely
on a sort of editorial-personal
journalism model? Surely no one is
being misled as to that fact.

There is a dual standard that
could be adopted by the Board that
would be both readily applied and
more consistent with the desire to
have widespread information and
opinion exchange, presently
hindered by the Board's policy.

Initially, funds should be denied
to any group whose purpose is the
elections of candidates on any level,
national, local or University, or
which engages in and would use
student money to lobby for specific
legislation. The prohibition should
operate to bar funds for efforts to
directly affect the outcome of the
political process. Student Council
itself might in fact by guilty of
violating this proposed standard.

Secondly, and here is the
distinction between the Board's
standard and the proposed one:
Publications or other
communications media with First

Amendment protections, unless
published by groups denied funds
under the first category, would as a
general rule be entitled to funds.
Only in the clear absence of value
as news, information, or opinion
sources would a denial result.

"Absence of value" would be
determined by several criterion
including, but not exclusively,
relevance to the University
community and representation of
views not otherwise available. It is
presumed that no publication
would easily fall within the
penumbra of valueless activity.

Other Criteria

This standard would be
consistent with the desire to
prevent the use of student funds for
political purposes and the more
important desire, especially in a
University community, to maintain
the broadest possible exchange of
ideas regardless of how foreign they
may be to the majority of the
student body.

It is still quite possible that the
Virginia Weekly would be denied
funds or experience a substantial,
but not debilitating reduction when
the other criteria for funds
allocations are applied. For
example, they have not responded
to Council request to become more
University-oriented, a criteria that
would be pertinent under the
second proposed standard; they
may not have vigorously sought out
funds from other sources,
specifically advertising, local and
national, and so forth:

Regulating Activity

The objection to the Council's
action and more specifically to the
Board's resolution is not much the
result it dictates here. Maybe the
Weekly doesn't deserve large
amounts of student moneys. But,
the principle relied on is too
restrictive as it pertains to papers
and the media in general. We should
be extremely careful before we
accept regulations which
categorically bar funding to certain,
unusual, extreme or otherwise
objectionable publications, for it is
these that require the greatest
protection and attention, especially
it the free exchange of ideas is to be
fostered. If university communities
can no longer foster and accept
unpopular or unorthodox activity,
then it is doubtful that any other
segment of our society can either.