Staff editorial

Last Thursday, an insert promoting Southern Illinois University Carbondale (SIUC) came tucked inside The Shield.

Emblazoned with the phrase “be part of the in-crowd,” the insert highlighted SIUC’s new offering of in-state tuition rates for incoming freshman living in Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas and Missouri.

The Shield’s advertising department reviewed the insert before publication and didn’t see any problems. 

Upon publication, our editorial staff also saw the ad, and no metaphorical-alarms went off.

Members of USI administration, however, did not share our feelings of nonchalance because ironically - or, unfortunately, depending on one’s reaction to the ad - USI’s Southern Hospitality Day, in which the university invites prospective students to tour campus and meet with faculty members, would fall on the following Saturday.

This means, of course, students interested in USI would find thousands of Shields readily available all across campus, each equipped with an enticing advertisement from a nearby competitor.

After fielding the concerns of certain ... concerned administrators, we asked ourselves a tough question:  should we avoid running advertisements from USI competitors in an effort to protect the best interests of this university?

Our answer was simple and resounding:  no we should not.

Contrary to prevailing belief, the majority of The Shield’s budget does not hinge on contributions from student fees - it hinges on advertisements.

We are largely self-supporting and, due to the minimal assistance we receive from the university (example:  we don’t even have enough money to buy a journalistically-competitive camera), we cannot afford to discriminate the types of ads we sell just to appease USI.

Advertisements make-up 65 percent of our budget, and if we don’t sell enough ad space, we must dip into a reserve account to make up the costs.

One could argue a benefit to freezing out advertisements from competitors, though.

After all, if USI’s enrollment begins shrinking due to an increasingly competitive market, the university could possibly receive less funding from the state legislature, which could set off the metaphorical domino effect of stripped accreditation of our programs, lay-offs of faculty and, eventually, USI degrees becoming essentially worthless.

But if we bar possibly-damaging-to USI advertisements, how long until we start censuring opinion articles that criticize behavior of USI administrators, faculty or students?

Or avoid covering news stories that don’t shed USI in the greatest of lights, but do raise important questions relevant to students and the day-to-day operations of the university?

While we respect and admire this institution, we are not here to promote it.  We are here to report on it to the best of our ability, and make sure every student has a forum in which to share their concerns.

Our policy on advertisements is simple:  any questionable material should be brought to the editor in chief, and subsequently presented to the editorial board, who alone decides what material will run in (or outside) the pages of this publication.

If USI administrators truly have faith in this institution as they claim to each and every time we interview them, then they should not fear an eight-and-a-half-by-eleven slip of paper passive-aggressively urging students to consider another educational option.

We should not have to speak for USI.  It should be able to speak for itself.