October 3, 2005

 

My Fellow Journalists:

It is with a sense of both outrage and urgency that I now appeal to you, in the hopes of effectively soliciting, and thereby emphatically registering, extensive communal disapproval for the recent, duplicitous conduct of the executive committee of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ).

 

My name is Margaret L. Hosty, and I am the titular plaintiff in the Hosty v. Carter lawsuit, for which there is presently on file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court (USSC), in which my colleagues and I are seeking to have the nation’s most superior court overturn a disastrously short-sighted, woefully illogical, and patently absurd decision of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in which the majority of judges have ruled, essentially, that, based on the mere presence of subsidy, there is no distinction between colleges and kindergartens when it comes to the exercise of constitutional liberties. What this means, in a nutshell, is that simply because students and taxpayers are compelled to contribute to the student activity fees which support expressive activities and speech on campuses, the government is at liberty to control and censor these very same activities and types of speech. (You read correctly—your dollars, if a student, are free to be used by the administration to both squelch your First Amendment freedoms and any report of administrative wrong doing.) In other words, once the age of enlistment is attained, you are entitled to give your life to defend the U.S. Constitution, but, if government subsidy is in any way involved in the robust exchange of ideas, you are not at liberty to enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by it. As someone who hails from a line of U.S. military veterans (my mother did wear combat boots), I find this evisceration of liberties nauseating and infuriating.  But wait, it gets worse.

 

The appellate court came to this horrifically Orwellian conclusion at the insistence of the arguments put forth by the Attorney General’s Office for Illinois, spearheaded by Lisa Madigan.  This means that our own government strenuously sought legal permission for government officials (administrators at public universities) to deprive adult students of their constitutional liberties. As if that weren’t insulting enough, the SPJ has recently decided that it would add insult to injury by choosing to honor Madigan with a “Sunshine Award,” because, the body contends, Madigan made good on an election promise to enforce and facilitate our state’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Politics makes for strange bedfellows, and the SPJ is now sleeping with the enemy.  Correct me if I am wrong, but we ordinarily honor people who have gone above-and-beyond the call of duty, not because they are doing the job for which they have been selected and are being paid.

 

Of course, for those of you who might not know it, as a born-and-bred Chicagoan, I can assure you that, in this city, politics is king, and this reeks of nepotism on the part of the parties involved. The SPJ had lent its name to an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in the appellate proceedings, on behalf of the student journalists involved, in which it had agreed that Madigan’s position was contemptible and antithetical to the First Amendment, yet now, the very same organization has seen fit to honor Madigan for simply doing her job. (With friends like this, who needs enemies?) Mind you, Madigan did not have to adopt and advocate the legal position she did in Hosty, but she did anyway, thereby exposing First Amendment liberties to serious risks and deleterious consequences, minimally, for adult students in the three states within the pertinent circuit (Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.) Of course, the danger is even greater; now that Madigan is personally responsible for witnessing the poisonous determination of the appellate decision (thanks to her legal posturing of the arguments involved), it appears as though it will spread like wildfire throughout our nation, as memos reportedly have been circulated by legal authorities in no fewer than three other states, in which school administrators have been put on notice that they might enjoy greater leeway when it comes to curtailing dissenting voices or investigative reporting, again, based simply on the presence of subsidy. As courts typically look to other decisions in order to determine what precedent has established, this means that the likelihood of the level of constitutional infringement now permissible in my circuit may soon extend to yours, which signals a veritable death knell for the First Amendment; send not, therefore, for whom the liberty bell tolls—it tolls for thee.

 

Madigan should not be able to have it both ways, and neither should the SPJ: Madigan should not be able to pass herself off as the protectorate of freedoms involving access to investigative materials in the government’s possession, but then at the same time be the very individual responsible for helping ensure that exposure of investigative results be subject to the approval of government officials. (It is the equivalent of promising someone that s/he can pick all the fruit s/he can manage, but then forbidding the person to make use of the fruit.) The SPJ should not be able to pass itself off as a defender of First Amendment rights, and at the same time, turn around and praise the offender. To honor a person for simply doing her job (because it is politically gainful) is preposterous conduct, and should be suspect when it is contrary to everything which the body proclaims it reveres. Simply put, it would be inconceivable to honor a police officer for defending his neighbor’s wife from a rapist if he is the same person responsible for holding down the neighbor’s daughter during a rape in which he may also have participated—the two don’t “balance out” each other: Madigan may give with her right hand, but she takes away substantially more with her left, and so working to provide greater access to information is a meaningless gesture if she at the same times strives to ensure that said information can never be put to use in a critical and contributory way.

 

Sunshine Acts are intended to promote greater transparency and accountability on the part of the government, and Madigan’s stance in opposition to adult students’ rights are utterly in contradiction to what said acts are meant to accomplish, because it grants power to government officials to suppress report of or discourse on the potentially violative (even criminal) acts of those very same officials: When administrators are given license to screen and approve that speech and those activities which are expressive in nature (including criticism of administrative performance, or exposure of monetary abuses), the journalists are muffled, the transparency is compromised, and attempts at accountability are seriously jeopardized, all of which leaves adult students in a position to endure limitless abuse at the hands of their potential and actual oppressors.

 

While there have been many offenses committed against us as students, I think it of the utmost relevance to realize that this is a case pertaining to principles, inalienable rights, and the very bedrock of our free and democratic society.  Whereas stripping student journalists of any real possibility of getting to press might seem to be a relatively insignificant issue, it is not without its more serious repercussions.  It must not be forgotten or de-emphasized that, in addition to being students, we are citizens of the United States of America, and, as such, to us certain liberties are essentially guaranteed.  In a climate of controversial and vitriolic bi-partisan politics, the elements which bind us together as a nation must assume a greater importance, one of which is the document intended to both equalize and unify us—the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment being honored, obeyed, and rigorously protected is crucial to the welfare and sustenance of our republic.  In order to “preserve the blessings of liberty,” measures must be enforced to prevent anarchy from reigning, and to inhibit the abuse of citizens against one another.  The precepts outlined in our nation’s constitution are meant to ensure that justice will be permitted to prevail as a result of policies established to address incidents which cannot possibly be predicted in any great detail. In having a voice, per se, citizens are enabled to inform the public of dubious and duplicitous actions, create more specific legislation as warranted, and to formulate preventative regulations on behalf of the common good—i.e., “to promote the general welfare” of this country: What might seem inconsequential to one audience could have far-reaching effects on a much broader population.

 

For example, perhaps student journalists being denied the opportunity to report misappropriation of funds at a state school might not raise very many eyebrows.  Perhaps if the reading audience were made aware that the funds were actually student fees collected and being abused, it would raise, at the very least, the eyebrows of the students who had paid for services they were not receiving. Perhaps more than eyebrows would be raised, however, if those same students were also parents and taxpayers (as is the case with most students at Governors State University), individuals who repeatedly are required to have escalating amounts taken out of their hard-earned paychecks and diverted into local and state education funds because money already allocated for such expenses had been utilized to fund pet projects, personal indulgences, or private purchases on the part of the school’s administration.  Suddenly, a forum intended to speak initially to a microcosm sparks far more inclusive community involvement; matters are investigated, efforts are made to squelch future offenses, surveillance procedures are established, and individuals who have willfully abused their responsibilities and the law are held accountable.

 

Many great injustices have been exposed, opposed, and overcome by individual citizens exercising their rights to freely address their fellow men.  Are we so perfect a nation that we dare to abandon the principles annotated in the U.S. Constitution?  I think not, and therefore, we are obligated to safeguard the rights we retain to speak out on whatever we desire or inspire to do so.  We must remain free to speak out against tyranny, discrimination, malice, or oppression.  We must remain free to express concerns, raise questions, provide answers, protect our interests, defend our characters, clarify our positions, inform our peers, denounce our detractors, and persuade our opposition. These privileges we enjoy not simply because our founding fathers decreed it so, but because countless men and women continuously and selflessly risked and/or paid the ultimate price so that we might know these liberties: To disregard the U.S. Constitution is to dishonor those who had sacrificed (and who continue to sacrifice) for our benefit everything---their very lives and fortunes.  Freedom, like charity, must begin at home, and if the U.S. Constitution can mean everything to those who, in defending it, protect us, how then can it mean nothing to those of us protected by it? Liberty is as necessary as oxygen. It is not until we have suffered deprivation of some kind that we begin to realize the veracity of said maxim; to live freely is as fundamental a requisite to human welfare as is to breathe freely.

 

If citizens of this nation do not retain the right to speak freely, how are they to make informed and responsible decisions? Without the rights provided to us per the First Amendment, as citizens, we have no voice, and if we have no voice, then we have no protection against being victims all our lives.  If we have no voice, how do states “form a more perfect union” if they do not have a means of conveying the concerns of their constituencies to one another? If we have no voice, how do we “establish justice” when we are not made aware of injustices being committed against us or others?  If we have no voice, how do we “ensure domestic tranquillity” if some factions of the population are repeatedly and covertly abused? Silence will always be an ally to oppression, dereliction, and negligence.  If we have no voice, how do we know what provisions are being made to “provide for the common defense”?  If we have no voice, how do we “promote the general welfare,” when kept unaware of our inadequacies?  If we have no voice, how do we “secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity” if we cannot learn of sweetheart deals, corrupt officials, inadequate legislation, unequal treatment, or inappropriate representation?  The U.S. Constitution has, indeed, established a precedent which I pray the courts will acknowledge must be maintained at all costs; we have everything to lose if they do not, and not simply our case.

 

But where do you come in? Raise your voice; exercise your First Amendment rights and voice your disgust with the duplicitous conduct of the SPJ’s executive committee. Do well to remember, “The only thing necessary the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” (Edmund Burke) Ask the organization to reconsider its position and revoke the award it has ridiculously seen fit to give Madigan—an act which makes a mockery of the group’s tenets. Madigan deserves no such honor; if anything, instead of a “Sunshine Award,” she should be given an “Eclipse Award,” for effectively participating in the blotting out of adult students’ rights. Make no mistake about it; Madigan’s attitude betrays a slave owner’s mentality, in which she is perfectly comfortable in depriving adult students in three states of their constitutional liberties, so long as others are free to enjoy theirs off campus. During the U.S. Civil War, some parties were just fine with blacks in the southern states being subjugated, so long as those in the northern ones weren’t. Madigan seems just fine with adults in three states suffering deprivation, but, as a house divided cannot stand, the contest and the issue necessarily escalate to the national level of concern. Think it will end here, with Hosty? If those are the rules of engagement for public schools, what’s to prevent them from becoming the future standards of deprivation at public parks? Public libraries? Public pools? Public concerts, fairs, or performances? If the only condition necessary for the government infringement of adult rights is the presence of taxpayer subsidy, it would be folly to postulate that the courts will limit the parameters of Hosty to merely college campuses; thanks to Madigan’s insistence, Big Brother is steadily gaining ground, and this will have serious implications for your professional as well as your personal lives, because if you cannot share what you know, you cannot effect change, protect yourself, or earn a living without impediment . Famed activist Saul D. Alinsky rightly noted, “Action and articulation are the same thing, as are silence and surrender.” If the decision in Hosty stands, then, in being at constant and intensified risk of being silenced, we face greater chances of losing the ability to shape and control our lives. And if the SPJ proceeds to honor Madigan, then it is publicly commending (instead of condemning) the woman responsible for the onset of an American oligarchy. As John F. Kennedy had reckoned, the time to mend the roof is when the sun is shining, and so the time has come to sound the alarm, gather your nails and hammers, and make straightaway for your ladders. Let the SPJ know that you do not approve of its recent actions. Ask it to revoke the award to Madigan. (As a result of local politics, in which SPJ Vice-President of the FOI Committee and local columnist Phil Kadner has been influential, Madigan has also been nominated as Illinoisan of the Year for 2005; this is the height of idiocy and gall, as the woman responsible for eviscerating the constitutional liberties of fellow citizens is hardly the ideal citizen herself.)

 

Please be aware that there are those within the SPJ itself which do not approve of the executive committee’s decision to honor Madigan. In fact, when I had contacted the Student Press Law Center (SPLC) about the contradictory behavior (the SPLC is and has been responsible for organizing all amicus efforts in Hosty), Mark Goodman, that body’s director, conceded that he had had no knowledge of the SPJ’s recent actions, and had promised to look into the matter; what he discovered was that the decision was not ecstatically embraced by members of the SPJ, some of which were unaware of the matter themselves, as the decision rested with the executive committee. (The executive committee has defended its decision, which means, at present, they are adamant about presenting Madigan with the award this month.) As such, it would be unfair to vilify the organization in its entirety; however, it is wholly appropriate to register disapproval for the executive committee, and to call into question their motives and future fitness to lead an organization whose very tenets they seem hell-bent on defying.

 

Please act now; your expedient response should provide the SPJ bigwigs an opportunity to retract the award in light and consideration of mass disapproval by the members of the community to which they allege their interests are beholden. (The event is slated for later this month.)  If the SPJ execs do not rescind the offer, and insist upon tendering the award as intended, then at least there will be a record of your disapproval on file the next time voting rolls around for the key positions within that body, and those responsible for lauding the individual who petitioned for and achieved the egregious effrontery to the First Amendment hopefully will face diminished odds of successful election. For the sake of convenience and expedience, I have taken the liberty of drafting a petition to send to the SPJ’s attention; please visit the web address I have provided herein of http://new.petitiononline.com/SPJPlea1/petition.html , and add your name to the petition of those protesting the SPJ’s duplicitous and contrary decision to honor Madigan a “Sunshine Award”.

 

Please also forward this request to any parties you believe would be equally concerned and distressed by the SPJ’s recent activity. I thank you in advance for your time and attention as regards this matter, and I look forward to seeing your name on the register of support in this particular endeavor.  Until such time as I do, therefore, I remain

 

Cordially yours,

 

Margaret L. Hosty,

U.S. Citizen, Adult Student, and Fellow Journalist

 

Dwight D. Eisenhower had said it best: "Americans, indeed all freemen, remember that in the final choice, a soldier's pack is not so heavy a burden as a prisoner's chains."