Tufts Community Union Senate President Mitch Robinson, along with freshman Senator Duncan Pickard, presented "A Resolution to Improve the Accountability and Integrity of Tufts Student Journalism" at the group's weekly meeting on Sunday.
One of many responses by the Senate to the December publication of the carol "O Come All Ye Black Folk" in the conservative publication The Primary Source, the resolution called for more dialogue on journalistic standards.
"I think there is a need for a group on this campus to discuss philosophically how we're going to approach publications on campus," Robinson told the Daily.
Still, the resolution, which was rejected and will be reworked for a second vote, has been met with confusion from many involved in on-campus media outlets.
As originally presented, the resolution supports the creation of a "body of students, faculty, and administrators to serve as a forum to discuss issues of journalistic integrity among Tufts media groups" and noted that "the TCU Senate encourages the Tufts community to hold editors of student media groups accountable for the content of their publications."
According to Senate Parliamentarian Andrew Caplan, the main purpose of the group will be to promote dialogue on responsible journalism, not to involve itself in censorship of any form.
"We certainly do not conceive of it as a committee of senators to come up with the decisions of what should be published on campus," he said.
Robinson agreed. "That is not the business of the Senate," he said.
As such, he said that the purpose of the group will not be to dole out sanctions. "As soon as we get in the business of regulating and sanctioning publications, we're really doing a disservice to the student body because we're setting a precedent that will really have a lot of downfalls," he said.
These caveats have left many involved parties wondering what the purpose of the group will be if it is not to regulate.
Junior Michael Skocay, the Editor-in-Chief of the Tufts Observer, said that he supports dialogue, as long as it respects every publication's liberties.
"I would be in favor of certainly discussing issues but I wouldn't be in favor of anyone infringing on the level of freedom that we have right now," he said.
He said that following publication of the Source carol, he is concerned about overregulation.
"I think that that's a little bit worrying that in the aftermath of the whole Primary Source scandal that we would be sort of tied down in that," Skocay said. "I'm certainly wary of anyone ... coming in and imposing an authority on us that they don't have right now," he said.
Pickard, who is also an Opinion Editor for the Observer, said that this will not happen. "The idea isn't to have this hammer that we bring down on groups that aren't being as journalistically sound as we'd hope," he said.
Instead of punishing publications, the group will work to use dialogue to prevent future breaches of journalistic integrity, he said.
But not everybody is convinced. Douglas Kingman, the Editor-in-Chief of The Primary Source, said that if the group is to be effective, it will need to have some type of sanctioning authority.
"Having a body to talk about campus publications doesn't seem to really accomplish anything," he said.
"I don't see how the committee would have any effect unless they were seeking direct oversight and censorship."
Even if the group does not start out with this authority, he said the temptation to assume it may still be there.
"Any time that a group is given power, the tendency to expand the power over time is extremely likely," he said.
Caplan, who is also the chair of Allocations Board Council III, which oversees media groups, said that he understands these concerns, but emphasized that the committee will function responsibly.
"I certainly understand their concern for a group like this having too much power," he said. "That is, by no means, the intention of having a committee like this."
He also said that many of the concerns are premature because the resolution still has to be reworked.
Still, he said that the exact limitations of the proposed committee have not been decided on and might be left to the committee members to determine.
"I think it should be those interests coming together who should decide what the powers and limitations will be," he said.
While the Senate resolution supports the creation of the group, he said the group will depend on input from a variety of sources. "It's by no means a strictly Senate initiative," he said.
But the next version of the bill will offer some more guidance, though, in response to many senators' requests for a resolution that had more specifics.
Caplan said that the main reason that the first was rejected was that "the Senate felt it wasn't a complete enough resolution yet."
Although the specifics have not been worked out yet, the committee will involve some discussion on content, a topic that Attorney Mike Hiestand, who practices media law in Washington and serves a consultant for the Student Press Law Center, said is unusual for a centralized campus media group.
"When you're talking about a group that addresses content issues, that's fairly unique," he said.
"[Groups] usually have a pretty clear restriction against their being involved in content-based decisions."
But will such a body succeed in preventing the next carol and its ilk? Robinson said that it could.
He said that the lack of communication between students, administrators and publications has been a problem that manifested itself in the publication of the carol. "There wasn't enough universal dialogue," he said.
Others do not feel that dialogue between publications will adequately address the issue. Alison Hoover, the current chair of the Media Advisory Board, which currently deals entirely administrative actions rather than content decisions, said that such conversations could have happened during any of the group's meetings, but have not.
"I think that heads of publications run their publications the way they want to," Hoover, the Editor-in-Chief of the Source at the time of the carol's publication, said. "If they want input, the first place they usually turn is their staff."
According to Robinson and Pickard, their proposal has not yet been finalized. Pickard said that it will be reworked tonight.
Robinson said that he hopes it will be ready to be presented to the Senate again at its meeting on Sunday.
Once a more complete version is ready, discussion will be easier, according to Caplan.
"It's really hard to criticize or praise an entity that doesn't exist yet," he said.
