To the Editor:

In the wake of Monday’s news about this paper, I have but one question: Have the administrators of Saint Louis University completely forgotten the U. News advisory board? (They did, after all, create it.)

During my two years as editor in chief, this was the means by which the University handled its problems with the newspaper, and I’d say it worked well. This group of students, faculty, administrators, and professional journalists volunteered their time on a regular basis to see that I was aware of complaints against the paper. I took their counsel seriously, and if they considered a problem to be important, the paper did as well. In one case, the board decided that we should not have printed a particular ad. As a result, an appropriate punishment was dealt: The U. News donated the amount of revenue it had made from the ad to an approved charity.

The board, as I knew it, had the power to enforce real changes at the paper. But, more importantly, it was also a group of conscientious people who were willing to work with me rather than against me to help maintain the quality of the papers’ form and content.

Would that SLU’s top administrators were that mature. Instead, rather than working on individual problems in a collaborative way, it seems that the University has waited until students are distracted by finals and summer plans to abolish the independent newspaper outright.

This is a dreadful overreaction, and must be reversed.

As I understand it, proponents of a new charter say that the U. News needs help editing copy, checking facts, and managing its books.

In the case of the first two complaints, every newspaper in the world needs more editing help; on an almost daily basis, they admit errors and publish corrections. If the University wants to help with this problem, why not give the U. News some money to hire more copy editors? Of course, a deal would have to be made to ensure that those editors were not beholden to the administration. However, I’m confident that, through the advisory board, it would be possible to hire helpers who were reliable but also capable of working for an independent newspaper.

As for the third complaint, I remember discussing many financial decisions with at least two school officials during my time as editor. I took their advice seriously, whether I sought it or not. This was still an effective practice when I left a year ago. Why has the University not attempted to continue it? Why is the only answer to seize permanent control of the paper’s management?

It appears to me a rather transparent effort by President Biondi and his lieutenants to decapitate an institution whose primary purpose is to check their job performance. They are trying to silence their most ardent critic, and it’s an insult to every person on this campus to suggest anything less (as they repeatedly have). Do they think we are so stupid or apathetic that we would believe a newspaper run by the administration would be anything more than an expensive newsletter? If City Hall, for example, were to seize control of the Post-Dispatch, would any St. Louisan with half a brain still think it was a reliable newspaper?

Despite what some might perceive, students who work for the U. News don’t deny that the administration is one of the most important parts of the University. However, one need not take a civics lesson to know that those in power are often the last to criticize themselves.

And that is why an independent newspaper is essential to the health of any community. Fr. Biondi doesn’t have to like the U. News, but the moment he revokes its independence, he violates a fundamental tenet of our society. It’s a selfish thing to do, and a horrible example to set as a Jesuit priest and the leader of our fine University.

When I graduated, I left on the door of the U. News office these words from the court ruling that upheld the printing of The Pentagon Papers, and I leave them with you now:

“A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, an ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the public to know.”

Andrew Ivers
Editor in Chief
2004-2006