Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

There are reasons behind SAS closure to the press

To the editor,

I have three things to say about your coverage of Students Against Sweatshops (SAS) this past Friday. This coverage consisted in Ryan Gabrielson's article on SAS and the Workers' Rights Consortium (WRC) and your editorial on SAS's press openness policy. First, equating the closure of SAS meetings with the hiding of sweatshops is offensive. One is an issue of some reporters being asked not to bring their notebooks when they visit -which is not the same as "banning" anyone at all; the other is an issue of literally millions of people being oppressed. You should be ashamed of the comparison.

Second, your editorial completely failed to understand the reasoning behind the closure of SAS meetings. You appeal to freedom of information. But SAS member Tim Bartley pointed out that our reason for asking reporters to leave is precisely that we want discussion to be open and free. Your appeal to the value of freedom of information is thus specious; that value supports "both sides" on this issue. You simply refuse to see the way in which your presence would also hinder free expression. Good journalists would have begun to ask themselves difficult questions regarding trade-offs between privacy and freedom. These issues are of increasing importance in an "information age," and a serious consideration in the Wildcat would be a service to students as well as a good way for you to shore up policy. Instead, you completely fail to take this issue seriously. That is a disservice to your readership and a case of journalistic irresponsibility.

Avery Kolers

Philosophy graduate student