Dear ASPSU,

The phrase “good government” gets thrown around often in political discourse. While there is no textbook definition, most people would agree that a degree of transparency is fundamental. 

Transparency is essential to government’s ability to represent the electorate’s will. This becomes impossible when government refuses to work with the media. The Rearguard brings this up because PSU’s government has allegedly refused to cooperate with the Spectator, and if our suspicions are correct, the Rearguard as well.

The Spectator, in the tradition of investigative journalism, has been running a series of articles called “What Have You Done for Me Lately, ASPSU?” The series echo a piece run by The Rearguard in years past called “The ASPSU Checklist,” which may warrant a return to our hallowed pages this year. Such articles serve to keep ASPSU, and promises made by candidates when they run for the highest paid and most powerful student office on campus, in check. Conflict between ASPSU and the Spectator was allegedly born from a piece in the Spectator's November 2009 issue, which reported on President Sanford's push for shared governance with University President Wim Wiewel. The Spectator remarked that such actions, so early in the year, were troubling. “The implications are that Sanford would essentially have to follow Wiewel around at every public appearance,” the editors of the Spectator said in their article. “If true, this may be a strategic mistake to be so confrontational this early in the year… in this case, collaboration would probably yield the best results for students and the long term prospects for the school.”

The same piece referred to Sanford's behavior, which has, at times, been rather unbecoming for a student body president, such as his habit (as the Spectator described it) of putting his feet up on his desk and enthusiastically describing his high level of university administrative access. Sanford is quoted as attributing this behavior to his Scottish ancestry. In classic satirical form, the Spectator suggested that other public behavior of his, such as swearing, may be derived from his Scottish ancestry as well. Sources that wish to remain anonymous (due to fear of retaliation) have reported that Sanford responded with an appearance at the Spectator office, banging a copy of the November issue in his hand, and demanding to see Editor Joe Wirtheim. Next, Sanford allegedly took steps to file a complaint with the university publications board, citing hate speech. We doubt that Sanford missed the satirical nature of the comment made in the Spectator article, and suspect that he is instead retaliating against criticism. For the Spectator's part, they have remained impressively diplomatic, publicly stating only that information from ASPSU is still forthcoming. “I will say that, as an editorial publication it's our job to ask questions, and offer informed commentary on policy makers' work,” Wirtheim said. “We do this on behalf of our readers who expect us to engage in the diverse marketplace of ideas. We understand that not everyone will agree with our comments, but that's the point of our work: to offer fresh perspectives.”

The heart of the issue is this: the role of media is to serve as a check against government. This generally entails reporting on what government is doing. The role of the media is in no way to be the friend of the power elite. When government engages in activities that potentially oppose the best interest of the electorate, it is the duty of the media to report, regardless of how it might ruffle the feathers of those in power. What Sanford is being charged with is akin to President Obama refusal to deal with Fox News – he has barred access to a media outlet because of the ideological content of the reporting, or because the reporting contradicts the message of the government. This recalls Nixon's adversarial treatment of the press, which we at the Rearguard are pretty sure neither Presidents Obama nor Sanford wishes to imitate.

The Rearguard invites President Sanford, or any other involved figure, to respond to the allegations made by submitting a letter to the editor. Hostility between the ASPSU and media outlets not only prevents the media from doing its job, but also allows ASPSU and other governing bodies to operate in a shroud of secrecy that flies in the face of the democratic traditions of this country and the open community that Portland State promotes.

References: October and November issues of the Spectator.

Comments

rejoyce99

0

 

 

No need to start a squabble with ASPSU. Students need to hang together. Student governments everywhere are characterized by the struts, challenges, and attacks of young males upon each other. If the student body president is engaged in unbecoming behavior, so what? He is just strutting. And so are you, when you challenge him. It sounds like you are getting ready to run for office, yourself.

Tuesday 26 January 2010, 06:54

Jharkhand29

0

 

 

Only a child would say something like that...or any fanatic loyalist follower of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (not that he was entirely a bad guy, though his own followers preferred to not defy him since he was their "government"). Continuous praise is given for those in power but the ones who speak with a sharp tongue are considered the king's enemies.

Sunday 07 February 2010, 16:32

NCHLS

0

 

 

"strutting", as you put it is different in this case, as Anthony is not an ASPSU figure. we're the press. it's what the press does. are you not familiar with the role of press in government? 'cause like, you should be.

Wednesday 27 January 2010, 10:27

Jharkhand29

0

 

 

I understand what it is like to go through a college experience feeling as just a number, as in your voice has no sway over a large and powerful entity. It feels frustrating, doesn't it? I asked myself why I couldn't do anything that will lead to a successful result (when attending PCC - Sylvania Campus) and did the same when the government refused to provide me with justice. The institution is receiving hundreds of millions of dollars gradually because of a measure that was passed in 2008 to allow further expasion of already-existin g buildings and the production of new center(s). Now that I attend PSU I see something similar going on (albeit not the expansion of already-exisiti ng buildings), specifically the production of a new recreational center while the departments such as Foreign Languages and Anthropology remain underfunded (have you ever seen the chairs and desks in NH? Yikes! Talk about 1970's decor!). What else bothers me is the continuous shuffle of classes into buildings not meant for one's major. For example, my CCJ classes have been conducted in a few buildings (excluding the College of Urban and Public Affairs, from which only one took place there) from the front all the way to the back of campus. It is annoying! Why not have all the CCJ classes placed in its college building? I have no idea why it isn't like this. Plus, in regards to a certain program (the BS/BA in Social Science) only two CCJ courses apply while as many History or Anthropology courses can be used. How is this justifiable? As a Criminal Justice major I find it to be quite non-sensible. And don't forget the hindering program of University Studies. By "hindering" I am referring to the extra time and money one has to spend before he gets his BS/BA when the whole education should be devoted to just the core requirements and chosen major. University Studies prolongs the course selection process for Junior Cluster. For example, my chosen Junior Cluster is Renaissance Studies. I have one more course left to chose but none of the courses offered in the short list are available for Spring '10! Plus, some courses not in the list are of the Renaissance Era but are on other lists. Can the ASPSU fix the issues that concern me? I am hoping they are in a position to do something about it. You say the administrative office has disconnected the ASPSU release of policy-making news to the student body. Does that violate our student right to access information affecting us? I remember my lawyer Tim Spofford, who taught me self-respect in regards to my disability, told me about the Freedom of Information Act which gaurantees the right of access to government records concerning the person who demands them. The general idea is to allow a person to know what the government is doing for him/her (or against him/her). What other reasons exist for ASPSU not allowing transparency for its policy reforms and policy-making processes other than the administrative office closing that window?

Sunday 07 February 2010, 16:25

Please login to post comments or replies.