Freeing the Press at B.U.

An uneasy status quo has been reestablished at Boston University following last week's flare up over editorial freedom of the student-run weekly, The B.U. News. President Harold C. Case has promised not to enforce his earlier dictum that News editor-in-chief Werner Bundschuh submit all copy to the faculty advisor to be reviewed "for accuracy" before publication.

The administration reversed itself because "there is a question of freedom of the press involved," according to J. Wendell Yeo, administrative vice-president in charge of student affairs. In return, Bundschuh has agreed to continue working for the News as long as it is published in accordance with the principles of freedom of the press.

Glorified House Organ

However, the legal set-up of The B.U.News by definition precludes freedom of the press. The News was conceived of and founded as a University newspaper, a glorified administrative house organ operated by students. The administration both appoints and pays executives of the paper, and, as publisher, is legally responsible for its content. The controversial Section J of the paper's constitution, which allows the administration to review copy "for accuracy," is merely a logical and understandable restriction by the employer on the employees. To strike Section J from the paper's charter would give the editor-in chief, who determines all editorial policy, tremendous power without the accompanying accountability.

The B.U.Student Congress now has proposed that it, not the University, be empowered to publish the paper and administer its budget. The Congress contends that this arrangement would answer administration arguments about liability while ensuring editorial freedom for the paper.

Besides the dubious legality of such a set-up, there is a more crucial difficulty. The suggestion would, in effect, transfer control of the paper from one self-interested power center to another. It is naive to suppose that student politicians with power of the purse over the campus newspaper could not assert considerable influence on editorial policy and news coverage.

If the B.U. students are not satisfied with the status quo, neither is the administration. Case plans to appoint a blue-ribbon committee to reexamine all University policy regarding student publications. This study will give high priority to the problems of responsibility and freedom of the press. Like any large and growing university, B.U. both needs and desires the critical feedback and dialogue that a newspaper uniquely provides. And despite the periodic administrative frowns that a lively free student press draws, the continuing dialogue that it inspires within a university community is, as Yeo himself said, "the essence of University'."

But it is difficult to see how any paper can have the freedom vital to such a forum as long as the administration controls the paper's financial or editorial operations. This issue has erupted over and over again on campuses where students operate what it essentially an administration press.

A Fair Solution

The most attractive, and perhaps the only fair, solution is an independent, self-supporting, self-perpetuating, student press associated with but not controlled by B.U., whose editorial policies would be decided democratically by its members. The question is, can B.U. set up and support such a paper?

The committee that Case intends to form provides an opportunity to find out. Such a committee should include not only B.U. administration and faculty members, but also student leaders and respected members of the journalistic and business communities. There should be an exhaustive investigation of student-faculty sentiment in favor of such a publication; of the expense and specific steps involved in setting it up; of the circulation and advertising necessary to make it viable; and of all availability of willing and competent staffers. It would be surprising if a university of 12,000 undergraduates could not supply the resources, financial and human, for such an enterprise.