A trend has recently come to the forefront of conversations surrounding activism on campus. Many advocacy organizations operate on a principle of “solidarity” to achieve social justice.
At first glance, this makes sense. It’s difficult to get momentum going behind a cause if there isn’t a significant portion of the population supporting it. However, solidarity should not be misused to shut down conversation — and journalism.
In my first post on this blog, I pointed out that student activists tend to distrust media outlets. To quote myself: I honestly can’t say that I blame them. When mainstream media outlets like Fox News (although this may be an extreme example) send out people like Jesse Watters with the explicit purpose of making fun of student advocacy, it’s a natural response to be wary.
There’s a problem, however, when journalists are barred from reporting on activist movements entirely because they haven’t explicitly expressed solidarity. Last year, students at the University of Missouri who were calling for President Tim Wolfe’s resignation surprised reporters by setting up a “no media safe space” at a Nov. 9 protest.
A few days later, there was a similar response at Loyola University in Chicago.
Organizers led students in a brief march around campus in which they chanted, “Not just Mizzou, it’s Loyola too!” before stopping at Halas field, where they locked hands and members of The Black Tribune asked the media, not including those from their own publication, to stand outside the perimeter.
“Hey, no media in the circle,” Ryan Sorrell, chief editor of The Black Tribune, said holding his hand up to a cameraman. “Sorry, man. You’re good, but just not in the circle.”
Here in Massachusetts, a Nov. 18, 2015 sit-in at Smith College garnered substantial media attention when reporters were completely barred from covering the action, which involved between 300 and 500 students.
Alyssa Mata-Flores, a 21-year-old Smith College senior and one of the sit-in’s organizers, explained that the rule was born from “the way that media has historically painted radical black movements as violent and aggressive.”
“We are asking that any journalists or press that cover our story participate and articulate their solidarity with black students and students of color,” she told MassLive in the Student Center Wednesday. “By taking a neutral stance, journalists and media are being complacent in our fight.”
Smith organizers said journalists were welcome to cover the event if they agreed to explicitly state they supported the movement in their articles.
Stacey Schmeidel, Smith College director of media relations, said the college supports the activists’ ban on media.
“It’s a student event, and we respect their right to do that, although it poses problems for the traditional media,” Stacey Schmeidel said.
Damn right it poses problems for the traditional media. It would not be ethically responsible for journalists to declare solidarity with a movement before covering a related event. Reporters, while they certainly may have their own opinions in private, aren’t for or against movements while they’re journalists. They are, ideally, completely objective, with an interest in keeping a reasonably good relationship with activists in order to report on their cause effectively.
To prevent an adversarial relationship, both advocates and journalists have to hold the media to a high standard of objectivity. Mata-Flores was right to point out the historical bias against black movements, and it would be ignorant to suggest that such bias does not continue today at many outlets. However, the fourth estate cannot do its job properly without access.
My message, to both reporters and activists, is simple: Don’t shut down the conversation.
Boston Student Activism 