The Washington Post cannot endorse a candidate for president, and neither can The Beacon. Over the summer, Emerson implemented controversial new policies restricting free speech on campus. As part of this policy, official student organizations can no longer “make political statements.”
As a student organization that receives funding from Student Engagement and Leadership rather than having paywalls or running advertisements, the ban on political statements extends to our editorial board. We are neither a self-sufficient nor fully functioning newsroom. We strive for journalistic excellence, but we serve the Emerson community before anything else.
There are times we feel like a “real” newspaper, like when our Developing Thread was the most accessed article about Emerson’s encampment, when we sent reporters to cover the presidential debate in Philadelphia, or when we published letters calling for the removal of President Jay Bernhardt.
But then, in one way or another, we’re reminded of our positionality as Emerson students. Though some of our coverage critiques Emerson administration and policies, we do not exist separately from Emerson. Bernhardt and higher administration can control what we publish just as billionaire Jeff Bezos has the final say on who The Washington Post endorses.
Hundreds of thousands of people were outraged at The Post’s decision to break their decades-long tradition of endorsing a presidential candidate. At least 8% of their readers canceled their subscriptions following the announcement. Longtime subscribers were rightfully outraged at the paper’s choice to remain silent.
But it was not The Post’s choice. It was Bezos’ choice. Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, met with two Post leaders, David Shipley and Will Lewis, and ultimately decided to not let the paper publish the Kamala Harris endorsement its editorial board had already drafted. The official reason for this endorsement being disallowed is unknown, but it is alleged that Bezos’ involvement with Trump through his space exploration company Blue Origin is the ultimate reason for The Post’s silence.
And let us be clear: silence is just that—silence. Regardless of the “neutrality” these institutions try to sell us, there is nothing neutral about remaining silent. By choosing to not denounce an oppressor, you are condoning their actions.
And yet, we at The Beacon find ourselves caught in the same predicament. But our neutrality is not a choice; it has been forced upon us by the Emerson administration. Though they may not have the same power as Bezos, their adoption of institutional neutrality means that we have been barred from endorsing a presidential candidate, just as The Post was.
As a student newspaper, we operate in an intermediate space, a “no man’s land” between functioning as a student organization within Emerson’s restrictions and as a newspaper, with a duty to inform our audience about issues that affect them.
Is it The Beacon’s place to endorse a candidate for president? Maybe not, but it wouldn’t be the first Beacon endorsement. In 2016, The Beacon endorsed Hillary Clinton: “For the next four years, we want our voices to be heard by our president. And ultimately, we are endorsing Secretary Clinton.”
College students are often at the forefront of societal change. The United States has a strong tradition of political activism originating on college campuses, and with nearly 6,000 institutions nationwide, the voting power of this demographic is significant. Many students, often first-time voters, turn to the media for guidance. Campus newspapers play a vital role, drawing on objective data and policy analysis to inform students about candidates they believe best represent their interests.
The Beacon’s Editorial Board cannot endorse a candidate, but that is not all we have been barred from doing. A blanket ban on political statements means we cannot comment on political issues. But where does that end—or even begin? Would we, hypothetically, be allowed to denounce Donald Trump’s sexual misconduct? Would we, hypothetically, be allowed to call out police violence, either on Emerson’s campus, in Boston, or nationally? Can we even implore you to vote at all, or is that a “political statement”?
Just like the Emerson student body, the editorial board comes from very different backgrounds: New Zealand, Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Massachusetts, and more. There is no one defining trait of Beacon staff—we aren’t even all journalism majors—but there are some things that as students, storytellers, and champions of free speech we all agree upon.
Emerson continues to promote its motto “Expression necessary to evolution.” As a newspaper—even one that also exists as a student organization—we believe in our right to express ourselves, which has undoubtedly been infringed upon this semester.
If you aren’t happy with the recent stifling of expression at Emerson, take your feelings to the polls. Read the policies each candidate aims to enact, keeping in mind how your rights to exist and express yourself in this country will be affected by each candidate. One candidate is running on a campaign of fear and division, and the other is running with a plan for a better America. There is a clear winner, but unfortunately, we cannot tell you who.
At the Emerson we applied to, this editorial would be an endorsement. Instead, here we are, learning how to navigate our own silence.
