University of Virginia Library

Our Right To Say It

In a recent letter to Student Council
President Bud Ogle, Frank W. Rogers, Rector
of the University, remarked, "we earnestly
desire your views on procedures to make
certain that student officers and organizations
are in fact truly representative of the groups
for which they purport to act. For example,
outsiders generally regard a college newspaper
as a reliable expression of the thinking and
philosophy of the student body, or at least a
majority of the student body. Are there in
effect measures to insure that this be true of
The Cavalier Daily?"

Our immediate reaction to this is to ask
Mr. Rogers and the Board of Visitors if there
are any measures in effect to insure that they
are representative of all the people in Virginia,
but that might be an embarrassing question.
The fact is that there are persons, almost all of
whom find themselves disagreeing with the
editorial policies of this newspaper, who are
asking the same type of questions as Mr.
Rogers brings up in his letter. We receive
letters quite often which suggest that the
newspaper should advance only those views
held by a majority of the student body; in
more extreme cases, the letter-writers often
demand that unless the newspaper reflects
their particular viewpoint, they want returned
to them that portion of their student activities
fee which finances The Cavalier Daily.

A student newspaper is a difficult animal
to classify. It is obviously not a full-fledged
newspaper: its staff works part time, combining
journalism with studies; they are amateurs;
their news gathering effort centers on their
school and stories of interest to students. Nor
is it just another student activity, for it affects
far more than just its staff in what it does.

Nonetheless, it is a newspaper. Its machinery
must perhaps be modified to fit its
circumstances, but those modifications must
never lose sight of the fact that the American
press has always operated in an atmosphere of
editorial freedom. Indeed, it cannot operate
without it. We believe that no matter what the
circumstances under which a student newspaper
is published, no matter how it is
financed, that editorial freedom must be
preserved.

The University has the right to expect
several things from its student newspaper.
Certain services must be provided - such
things as University Notices and the classified
advertisement service. News coverage must
strive for accuracy and impartiality. But a
student newspaper and its editors have a right
and responsibility to determine which events
are reported and to make editorial comment
on these events without threat of censorship,
arbitrary withdrawal of funds, or removal
from office.

There are other obligations that a newspaper
generally takes upon itself, not because
it has a duty to, but because it strives for
journalistic excellence. These include presentation
of many shades of opinion on the
editorial page and occasionally, in the student
press, such things as spirited support of the
school's athletic endeavors, and publicity for
the less newsworthy activities of school
organizations (when space permits). These can
be added to a student newspaper at the
discretion of its managerial staff. There can be
no compulsion for them to do so.

We don't think that many of the people
who are now so critical of our operation
would disagree with us on these principles. If
they do, they were certainly quiet when the
newspaper was controlled by more conservative
elements. The fundamental difference
between the student press and its relatives in
the outside world still applies - The Cavalier
Daily staff is open to any student at the
University who wishes to join it and devote
the time and energy necessary to rise within
its ranks. That is the control of newspaper
policy guaranteed by payment of the student
activities fee.

We feel that this paper is more representative
of student opinion than many critics
would like to believe. But that is immaterial.
At one point in its history, the New York
Times was embroiled in a controversy with
the United States Senate during the McCarthy
era. The issue there was whether or not there
were Communists employed by the Times.
The Times took a stand then which was
widely applauded in newspapers of all
persuasions across the country, a stand which
anyone who might wish to tamper with
editorial freedom would do well to be aware
of:

"We cannot speak unequivocally for the
long future. But we can have faith. And our
faith is strong that long after Senator Eastland
and his present subcommittee are forgotten,
long after segregation has lost its final battle
in the South, long after all that was known of
McCarthyism is a dim, unwelcome memory,
long after the last Congressional Committee
has learned that it cannot tamper successfully
with a free press, The New York Times will
still be speaking for the men who make it, and
only for the men who make it, and speaking,
without fear or favor, the truth as it sees it."

This is, and shall continue to be, our
position.