Last
updated: 03/03/08
Student
paper banned
A
sabbatical team has banned a paper made by their own students from being
distributed on campus.
Local independent student newspaper The Defender
has had its distribution rights curtailed by The University of Lincoln
Student Union Co-operative (ULSUC) after alleged ‘breaches of
working guidelines.’
The paper, that has been operating since 2001, is produced and edited
by students at the university but has no affiliation to the institution
or the students’ union. The paper is facilitated through Defender
Newspapers, a business owned by graduates of the university who founded
the paper during their studies. To date no official university student
newspaper has ever been produced.
Since 2003 The Defender has paid a monthly fee to ULSUC for
a distribution stand at the university’s Brayford Pool campus.
On attempting to distribute the first issue of the new academic year
the paper was told by ULSUC Communications Officer, James Roberts, that
they ‘might have been in breach of the working guidelines,’
but the union would need a meeting to decide whether any ‘breaches’
had occurred.
Defender editor Sophie Holt approached Mr Roberts to ask if
she could attend the meeting to discuss any potential problems. Her
request was denied and following that meeting the paper was informed
that it would not be allowed to distribute on campus.
Ms Holt said, “I am disgusted, disappointed and let down by my
own students’ union, who are supposed to be there to represent
me. This action is damaging their own students’ ability to gain
work experience, which is something that they usually encourage.”
“The creation of the working guidelines and decision to ban the
paper from campus was made through no consultation with me, my writers
or the student body as a whole at any point. I approached James Roberts
to be involved in the decision making process leading to the banning
of the paper, but my request was declined. I am disappointed that in
nearly a year’s editorship of the paper I have never been contacted
by the sabbaticals about any problems they had,” she added.
Mr Roberts said in a statement to The National Student, “Last
year, following previous inaccurate reporting from The Defender,
a set of Working Guidelines was agreed. The ULSUC does not expect favourable
treatment from The Defender but we do expect reporting to be
accurate. The Defender has breached these Working Guidelines. We are
speaking to The Defender’s editor to reassess the working
contract, as per the Working Guidelines. Until this is resolved it is
not appropriate to sanction the distribution stand on campus.”
Ms Holt said that in the drawing up of the ‘Working Guidelines’,
which expresses how the ULSUC would provide information to The Defender,
payment terms and distribution rights, no member of the paper’s
team were consulted at any stage. The guidelines clearly state that
ULSUC must provide all requested statements in writing via email or
letter.
Although several points from the guidelines have been cited by the union
as having been ‘breached’, to date no explanation of the
precise nature of these ‘breaches’ has been provided to
the paper.
In an e-mail to The Defender Mr Roberts did suggest that there
may have been problems surrounding the paper’s reporting of a
Drama Society story back in March this year, stating; “The main
issues from last year were those that reported the Drama Society Pantomime
and the comments/letters that followed.” Having prevented the
first issue of this semester from being distributed on campus he added
that, ‘the September/October 2006 issue has also already breached
the guidelines.’
Mr Roberts has referred to their story ‘Drama Society soap star
scam’ which stated that several students felt misled by a Drama
Society poster which claimed that Australian celebrity Ryan Moloney,
who plays Toadfish Rebecchi in the soap Neighbours was to appear in
their pantomime as a ‘special guest.’ He did not appear
in person at the performances, instead appearing on a TV screen in a
special video performance recorded previously. Despite many enjoying
the play, a number of people felt that the poster had been misleading.
In response to the union’s allegations Ms Holt said, “It
startles me that one of the main accusations refers to an article published
in March and that this has been left until now to be addressed by a
different sabbatical team.”
Although not mentioned directly by the union, one point of the guidelines
supposedly breached by the paper was, “3.1 As an independent publication
The Defender shall at no point be permitted to distribute copies
of any issue around University Halls of Residence.” Ms Holt explained
that at no point, since 2002 when the paper was allowed to deliver there,
had any copies of The Defender been delivered to the university’s
Halls of Residence and stated that ULSUC had not provided any evidence
to the contrary.
“This act of censorship is built upon unsubstantiated accusations
and at present it seems like a deliberate attempt to stifle any debate
that does not fit in with the student union’s wishes.”
The first issue of the year featured one story directly relating to
the students’ union and union President Leanne Goodwin granted
an official interview with a journalist from the paper, seemingly in
breach of the union’s own working guidelines which assert that
all statements are to be made in writing.
Ms Holt said that since the publication of the September issue ULSUC
has refused to give any statements, spoken or written, to The Defender.
“I find it hard to believe that we have had our distribution rights
ceased on the grounds that we have breached the guidelines set out by
the SU, without any evidence as to how these breaches occurred, when
the union openly and remorselessly breaks its own rules. There appears
to be one set of standards for us and another for them, which makes
an effective and proactive relationship between us incredibly difficult,”
she said.
Students have reacted angrily to the union’s decision and The
National Student has learnt that Mr Roberts has received several
complaint e-mails.
Third-year Journalism student Anthony Whitton said, “I think there’s
absolutely no good reason to throw The Defender off campus.
I sent an e-mail to James Roberts regarding it, demanding him to cite
references and articles in which he felt there was a breach of these
so-called regulations. That was two weeks ago, and I’m still yet
to receive a reply.”
At a short protest outside the students’ union office on Tuesday
October 17, student Jim Steel said, “I believe in free speech,
obviously the students’ union doesn’t.”
At the protest a ULSUC sabbatical officer informed Mr Steel that a decision
about The Defender was ‘to be made today.’
On contacting Mr Roberts the paper was told, “The Defender
has not been ‘banned from campus’.”
He added, “The current issue of The Defender will not
be able to be distributed.”
Ms Holt stated that a larger protest was planned if the ban wasn’t
overturned.
Third year journalism student, Natasha Miller, also expressed her annoyance
at the union’s decision, “The SU has taken the paper off
campus but hasn’t made it clear as to why. To me it seems that
the SU is scared that a free press such as The Defender, one
that isn’t funded and supported by the SU might occasionally write
a story that reflects negatively on them. The Defender isn’t
biased towards the SU and it worries them.”
The Defender is now waiting to be sent new ‘working guidelines’
and Ms Holt has said that the paper will do everything it can to get
back on campus without compromising its status as an independent publication.
