Who wouldn’t want to be able to pick up national news and commentary as
easily as they grab The Hustler or The Torch on the way to class?
For many years, Vanderbilt students have heard news about the possibility of bringing widely known, national newspapers to campus to be available free of charge to students. This USA Today Campus Readership Program seems to be a great idea on the surface, and has been billed as such by Vanderbilt Student Government and Vanderbilt students alike.
However, just as there is no such thing as a free lunch, there are no such things as free newspapers. As with many programs sponsored by governmental organizations intended to benefit a large group of people, The Campus Readership Program is rife with unintended consequences that affect the same Vanderbilt students the program promises to benefit. Furthermore, the Campus Readership Program raises some interesting questions regarding the role of the University in providing a balanced education to its students.
To begin, let me be clear: I love reading newspapers, and believe that every Vanderbilt student would be better off if they read a bit of The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times every day. However, this does not mean I believe it is Vanderbilt’s responsibility to provide such a service that is so easily obtained elsewhere. While one must rely on universities like Vanderbilt for a classic liberal arts education and the extra curricular activities that go along with it, The Tennessean and The New York Times are just a few clicks away on the Internet.
The argument, then, against the Campus Readership Program—as it stands now—is twofold. The first part deals with Vanderbilt policy, while the second is a more philosophical argument concerning the role of the university, VSG, and the rights of the student body.
To address the first of these arguments, let us examine two specific clauses in Chapter 5 of the Student Handbook. The first is under the section entitled “Student Communications.” It reads:
“Publications for general distribution to the university community or to persons outside the membership of a student organization and publications funded directly by the student activities fee are under the exclusive authority of Vanderbilt Student Communications.”
Both Dean of Students Mark Bandas and VSG President Cara Bilotta were quick to point out that VSG receives funding from sources other than AcFee, and Bilotta specifically mentioned, “VSG would be paying for [the papers’] distribution, not publication.” By this argument, VSG is acting within their authority to bring outside publications to campus.
Yet, while Bilotta and Bandas certainly have a valid point in terms of the letter of the law, the spirit behind the actions of VSG are somewhat disconcerting. VSC is comprised of a paid, professional staff with extensive experience in media and journalism, and a Board of Directors that includes faculty and several students who are heavily involved in student media at Vanderbilt. I sit on the Board of Directors. Consulting the head of VSC and the Editor-in-Chief of The Hustler, as Bandas and Bilotta did, is better than nothing, but certainly doesn’t represent the kind of due diligence necessary when contemplating a program that deals so heavily with media on Vanderbilt’s campus.
The second clause worth noting also falls under Chapter 5, in a section titled “Publicity, Promotions, and Advertising.” It reads:
“Commercial advertising matter and posters unrelated to the university are prohibited since advertising opportunity is provided in campus publications.”
This clause deals with the financial aspects of funding Vanderbilt media organizations. The University itself is a very attractive area from an advertising perspective—potential advertisers are lured by the prospect of reaching a large body of college students. Right now, Vanderbilt is, as VSC Director Chris Carroll puts it, “a protected environment.” Historically, he explained in an interview with The Torch, it has been “impermissible” to solicit anything commercial on campus without buying an ad in a campus publication like The Hustler. Advertising revenue accounts for about 95% of the Hustler’s budgeted revenue. The advertising clout of campus publications is diminished by not being able to claim an exclusive presence on Vanderbilt’s campus.
As the Editor-in-Chief of a publication that so often acts as an advocate for the free market system and healthy competition, it may seem hypocritical to speak out against bringing competing newspapers to campus. The reality is, though, that a university is not a free market, especially when it comes to student activities and the opportunities students expect to have when they enroll.
When students enroll at Vanderbilt University and send in their first tuition checks, they are purchasing a variety of different services. We all expect to have top-notch professors, a quality social environment, certain athletic opportunities, and the chance to either join a club or found one of our own. Certainly, the opportunity to work on a newspaper, magazine, or radio station is included in this set of purchased services. It is no different than the expectation athletes have to play on an SEC team, or that a pre-med student has to do research in a research lab.
In each of these examples, Vanderbilt University takes some measures to protect the students and the opportunity they have to pursue a variety of endeavors. Vanderbilt does not spend money reserved for the football team to buy each Vanderbilt student a ticket to Tennessee Titans football games, because doing so would certainly draw some attention away from our own Commodores, even though everyone might like going to watch the Titans. While it remains to be seen how the Campus Readership Program impacts student media, the fact that the University and VSG are spending money to outsource student held jobs should make any member of any student organization suspicious.
Bilotta claims that “it is only a benefit for our students to have access to as wide a range of information as possible” and that “national newspapers like USA Today, and The New York Times provide news, analysis, and commentary that are essential to a multi-faceted liberal arts education.” This is certainly true. However, in attempting to reach the entire Vanderbilt student body and achieve political success, Bilotta has failed to see the unintended consequences of such a “benefit.” The main issue is one of equity. By paying to bring competing newspapers to campus without offering any sort of protection to the campus media outlets—many of which operate solely on shoestring budgets and countless hours of hard work—VSG and the Office of the Dean of Students have begun the process of weakening campus media. Even more concerning is the precedent set regarding the vulnerability of other student organizations.
Bilotta and Bandas hope that the presence of national newspapers will “increase the readership of The Hustler and other VSC publications,” but as any proponent of the free market will tell you, competition—while always benefiting the consumer—also always yields a winner and a loser on the producers’ side. Thanks to the introduction of this Campus Readership Program trial period, VSG is one step closer to making a group of its own constituents the losers.
Comments