As a journalism student, to hear that a student union at a Canadian university was trying to cancel funding for its student newspaper made me feel a range of emotions: anger, disappointment, and surprise. The fact that the University of Manitoba Students’ Union (UMSU) would have a councillor introduce a motion for the union to defund the Manitoban and then have another councillor put forward a motion to hold a referendum on defunding the paper was just appalling.
After an editorial was written in the paper criticizing the UMSU’s decision to remain in the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), UMSU councillor Cole Parsons initially introduced a motion to cut funding, stating that the paper “has not been impartial.” The motion said that the editorial published by The Manitoban “sought to influence the results of a vote of all UMSU members.” This was refuted by the student paper, as the editorial had a byline from Shawn Huberdeau, the newspaper’s opinion editor.
Sure, this was a misunderstanding on the part of the councillor of the UMSU who did not understand that an editorial written with a byline doesn’t necessarily mean that the paper endorses it, but that doesn’t make the demand to cut their funding acceptable.
As the writer of the column, Huberdeau later argued that writing an opinion piece doesn’t mean it is endorsed by the paper at large. He added that anyone in disagreement of his opinion is welcome to challenge his letter.
I totally agree with Huberdeau, as editorials are a way in which newspapers showcase a particular point of view and can be a place for discussion.
Two separate editorials, one from Garett Williams, the paper’s editor-in-chief, and Tom Ingram, a former chair of The Manitoban, argued defences for the publication of the editorial. Ingram wrote that the paper’s mandate is to “report fairly and objectively on issues and events of importance” to the University of Manitoba student body, to provide an open forum for the free exchange of opinions, and to rouse meaningful debate on issues that affect the school’s students.
Williams wrote that the motion directly threatened The Manitoban’s independence, adding that the motion “suggests that publishing a critical word on UMSU council—an organization in command of a multi-million-dollar budget—should be met not with a sound rebuttal but an underhanded attack on the paper’s resources.”
The fact that Parsons wanted to cut funding to the paper is an attack on one of the primary functions of a newspaper– to uphold democracy. One UMSU councillor told the Winnipeg Free Press that he was appalled by the motion and said the motion was “a thinly veiled threat to the freedom of the press at the university aimed at a hundred-year-old outlet that has been holding UMSU accountable basically since it started.” I completely agree, as a student newspaper is the only way that students’ unions in this country are held accountable to their actions. No other news organizations would fill this void, as news concerning student unions is only relevant to the student body the union serves. If Parsons wanted to reply to the editorial by writing one of his own, that would have been an appropriate response, but a threat to revoke funding or the paper was not.
The student newspapers of this country are an important place where writers get to grow and learn their craft. During my first year of university, I wrote as often as I could for The Charlatan, and it helped me to gain valuable experience as a writer and to get help from editors to make my work better. Here at Carleton, The Charlatan is a great resource for students in any faculty—not just journalism—to become better writers and to express opinions, while at the same time holding the Carleton University Students’ Association accountable.
I thank the UMSU council for not letting this attack on the freedom of the press pass, but that they had to deal with it in the first place is wrong.
