Determination 105: University of Minnesota Women’s Studies Department v. Star Tribune
The Department objected to two articles in the Star Tribune on July 21, 1994. The Department made three claims of unfairness: first, that the articles distorted the reality and hurt the image of the Department by focusing on one course, which the Department said was unrepresentative of its offerings. Second, that the paper committed an ethical violation by using an undercover reporter in a classroom and by mischaracterizing the story it was working on when it approached the acting department chair, Jacqueline Zita, for comment; and finally that the main article relied uncritically upon the writings of Christina Sommers, whose work has been funded by organizations the Department characterized as “right wing.”
Representing the Women’s Studies department were department chair Amy Kaminsky, former acting chair Jacqueline Zita, and professors Naomi Scheman and Leola Johnson. Representing the Star Tribune were Pam Fine, newsroom leader, Maureen McCarthy, assistant city editor and reporters Maura Lerner and Anne O’Connor.
Response of the news organization: For the first complaint, they responded that the article acknowledged that the class was unusual, quoting Zita as saying the class was “not at all typical,” and “an unusual and exceptional course for us.” For the second complaint, they stated that the newsgathering method was not unethical because the University of Minnesota is a public institution and its courses should be open to the public; the reporter was a legitimate student registered for credit in the course and she never lied about who she was (although she didn’t say she was writing an article), and the reporter told the acting chair she wanted to talk about both the department’s accomplishments and alleged shortcomings. Last, it was said that the article did contain critical comments about Sommers by Zita, Dean Julia Davis of CLA and Professor Janet Spector.
Discussion on #1: The Star Tribune explored the national debate over the academic rigor of women’s studies departments on college campuses, fueled by Christina Sommers’ book Who Stole Feminism? and a Mother Jones article in 1993 charging that women’s studies programs support a specific agenda, have no tolerance for dissent and engage in male bashing. Education editor Maureen McCarthy said the paper decided the best, most vivid way to explore and localize the debate was to examine the Women’s Studies Department at the University of Minnesota and to include a first-person account of a course. They chose the course “Woman: A Sense of Identity” because it used sharply criticized teaching techniques, such as sitting in circles, sharing personal experiences and feelings and writing in journals.
The reporter, Anne O’Connor, was a senior in the Journalism School as well as a part-time staff reporter for the Star Tribune. She took the class for credit and wrote about her experience. O’Connor did not misrepresent herself to the professors or her classmates, but did not reveal that she was writing an article about the class. The Department charged that the Star Tribune was biased in choosing to report only on the course “Woman: A Sense of Identity,” an extension division class. Scheman said O’Connor was registered for a course in the regular curriculum but dropped it because the extension class better fit her thesis that women’s studies is not academically rigorous. Chair Amy Kaminsky said the course was created before the Department came into existence to help older women returning to school to develop the personal and intellectual skills needed to ask critical questions about their place in society. The course is not content driven, but experiential. Editor McCarthy said the paper chose this class because it was looking for a course that incorporated controversial teaching techniques that were receiving national attention. It did not intend to do a survey article about the Department in general. O’Connor did sign up for another course, but it was taught in more conventional academic way, so she dropped it. Fine pointed out that the Department has said it fully supports the use of the teaching methods. She also said the article clearly stated the course was not representative.
Scheman questioned the Star Tribune’s contention that it was examining teaching techniques, noting that the first-person story focused instead on content, not technique, and that no source was quoted talking about the teaching methods, which are also used in Ph.D. programs.
The reporters and editor were asked if they had ever written about pedagogical methods before; McCarthy said she had written about teaching at the lower levels and higher level science education, but not in liberal arts. O’Connor said she asked the Education Department to comment on the scholarly nature of the techniques but it declined to comment.
Fine said the stories were intended to paint a picture of the national debate, indicate the range of opinions, and dispassionately focus upon a local class experience. Scheman said the national debate was not about whether courses like “Woman: A Sense of Identity” exist, but whether women’s studies departments are academically rigorous. “[The Star Tribune] didn’t enter that debate,” she said.
Discussion on #2: Scheman, professor of women’s studies and philosophy, argued that the Star Tribune’s use of an undercover reporter observing and participating in a class without identifying her mission was deceptive and did not comply with the SPJ guidelines for use of deception:
- the information gained was not vital to the public interest,
- there were other ways to gain the information, and
- the harm done to the Department’s image was not outweighed by any harm prevented by the story, since there was no harm to the public.
Newsroom leader Pam Fine said there was much discussion among the staff about the ethics of doing this kind of story. The University is a public institution, she said, and therefore its courses should be open to public scrutiny; the SPJ guidelines cited did not apply because reporter O’Connor was not undercover: she did not hide or misidentify herself in any way. All information she gave was accurate and she participated fully as a student in class. The paper took precautions not to invade the privacy of other students, and O’Connor called every student after the course was over to get permission before using any of their comments in her article (only one student refused). She also interviewed the faculty after the course and told them she was writing a story. While Fine acknowledged that the use of a reporter as student might be unusual, she did not believe it was unethical.
Scheman said O’Connor could not have experienced the class as an average student would because she was involved in the process of reporting it. While one of the faculty members had said she would not have changed her instructional techniques had she known a reporter was in the class, she did say she would have been able to understand O’Connor better if she had known her purpose in attending. Editor McCarthy said that in her experience people always change their behavior when they know a reporter is present: they say or don’t say something, they strut or hide.
Council members asked O’Connor about the nature of her participation in class. O’Connor said she participated fully and was a class leader, as she said she is in all of her classes. Council media member Ron Handberg said he was concerned that O’Connor’s participation may have led other students to make comments that O’Connor later quoted in her article.
Handberg asked if she had generated any negative comment by her participation and she said she did generate comment. Newsroom leader Fine found the inference that O’Connor had provoked dissent “nefarious, if you consider we went back to everyone quoted and asked to use their comments.” She said the comments were the true opinion of the participants and that they are responsible for their own comments, not O’Connor.
Media member Jim Pumarlo asked the Star Tribune if it could have put together a package without O’Connor’s article. Fine agreed it could have done so, but McCarthy said the paper would not have done so because the important local element would have been missing. Scheman said the paper could have asked other students in the class to relate their experiences.
Regarding the complaint that Lerner misrepresented the nature of the story, Zita said Lerner told her she was working on a piece about the field of women’s studies and the anniversary of the department. Zita said Lerner did mention Sommers’ name during the phone call but she had no idea the story was to be an expose based on Sommers’ ideas. Zita said when Lerner interviewed the assembled faculty she asked no questions about the quality of the department and there was no investigation into course offerings, projects undertaken, graduates or faculty qualifications. She said she found the interview biased and very upsetting.
Fine said that prior to the interview Lerner told Zita she wanted to talk about criticisms of women’s studies and had faxed her the Mother Jones article.
Discussion on #3: The Department complained that the stories relied uncritically upon the opinions of Sommers and did not identify what they called the “right-wing” funding of her work. Lerner said no one told her of the right-wing funding. Zita said she didn’t know about it at the time of the interview and admitted that she didn’t tell the Star Tribune after she found out about it. Professor Leola Johnson said that the professors who knew about it weren’t contacted, but added that the Minnesota Women’s Press had found this information itself without being told by the Department. Fine said the paper used Sommers’ work because she had gained national attention and was particularly critical of the Minnesota program. Fine pointed out that the article provided balance by quoting Zita calling a passage of Sommers’ book “a cartoon,” quoted the Dean of CLA saying, “That woman has really gone off the deep end here,” and quoted Professor Janet Spector saying of Sommers’ criticisms, “It reminds me of the early ’70s – it’s trivializing what we do to see that we don’t get funding.”
Scheman agreed that it was fair and essential for the Star Tribune to give the department an opportunity to respond to the charges but argued that as interested parties they necessarily came across as self-serving and defensive. She said that since this was a national debate national sources should have been interviewed as well. Fine said she typically prefers to use local experts on national issues.
Determination 1: Distortion by using unrepresentative course The Council found in favor of the Star Tribune and did not uphold the Department’s complaint. Members felt the stories were basically fair and balanced, given their limited objective. Dissenting opinion focused on a broader definition of fairness (see opinion at end). Seven members expressed concern about a headline that suggested the stories were broader and referred to women’s studies courses in general, and not to the one course in specific.
Concurring: Barkelew, Cytron, Handberg, Kostouros, LeGrand, Parker, Parry, Pine, Pumarlo, Smith, Sorenson-Craig, Thompson, Wicks
Dissenting: Sellers, Seltzer
Abstaining: Anderson
Determination 2: The Council found in favor of the Star Tribune and did not uphold the Department’s complaint. Members felt that the paper had respected students’ privacy. They saw no subterfuge, and attributed the Department’s frustration to a difference of expectations about the nature of the article.
While they believed it fell short of “unethical behavior,” eight members expressed concern about the use of a reporter as an active participant in the class and about her leadership role. Public member Terry Thompson said, “It’s a slippery slope; allowing reporters in the classroom could have a chilling effect on academic freedom.” Parry said she would feel concerned if reporters couldn’t go into classes to report. “How many things involve writing about our experiences? I would be surprised if the Women’s Studies faculty hadn’t done the same.”
Concurring: Barkelew, Cytron, Handberg, Kostouros, LeGrand, Parker, Parry, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer, Smith, Sorenson-Craig, Thompson, Wicks
Abstaining: Anderson
Determination 3: The Council found in favor of the Star Tribune and did not uphold the Department’s complaint.
Concurring: Barkelew, Cytron, Handberg, Kostouros, LeGrand, Parker, Parry, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer, Smith, Sorenson-Craig, Thompson, Wicks
Abstaining: Anderson
Dissenting Opinion: Laurisa Sellers
I am struck by what can happen when a news organization decides to give serious coverage to an issue and a community outside what Ray Suarez, host of NPR’s “Talk of the Nation,” referred to last week in Minneapolis as the “narrow band of reality” that news organizations cover. They look for something to make it newsworthy. If they happen to choose a controversy, that’s great. Until controversies within those outside-of-the-band communities are covered, we will just get the usual celebrations and festivities stories. But, given their infrequent (or non-existent) eye on these communities, I believe that news organizations must then look to see if they are providing enough information about the “new” community for readers, viewers and listeners to get at least some sense of the context of the community.
I would argue that the normal definition of fairness – was the story balanced, did both sides get a chance to present their viewpoint? – is inadequate. If I read, watch or listen to a story about term limits, about the Mideast, about education funding, health care, restaurants, or a proposed business merger, I can take the story in using the information and opinions gleaned from the dozens (or hundreds) of reports I have heard on those topics. When news organizations go out of the narrow band of reality, I believe they have a responsibility to build a context. As the News Council for all Minnesotans, I think we have a responsibility to raise the question of whether or not an adequate context exists for “fair” reporting.
We have to find a way for out-of-the-band voices to be heard. I was disheartened by what I perceived to be the patronizing attitude of some Council members. Too much of what I heard could be characterized as “Well, you really don’t understand how newsrooms work, the role of the media, what you can and can’t do with the media.” We told those “outsiders” that they don’t really have a voice because “there’s a system and that’s not the way it works and no, the rules aren’t up for discussion.” We basically said, “If you’re lucky we’ll decide to venture outside the normal band and tell something about your reality, but it will be on our terms.” Are we enforcers of the rules as defined by the media? Are we allowed to push for a review of the rules? Do we have any role in raising issues about how the rules impact those whose voices and whose lives are not a part of the “majority reality?” There are so many communities outside of the narrow band whose voices are distorted or muted because the majority community doesn’t know how to listen and doesn’t even know that it doesn’t know. The cost of our ignorance is piling up.
Tags: Star Tribune