The First Amendment right to freedom of speech is both an important and coveted right that we have here in America. This freedom alone helps protect all the rights that every American has. The First Amendment is worth protecting and it is worth upholding.

Keeping this in mind, the editorial entitled “MSC given red light on free speech” in the Feb. 15 issue of the Criterion staked some very large claims in unfounded evidence. The editorial states that Mesa State College is potentially violating the rights of the students. Within the editorial there are two very separate topics that are lumped together under the same broad issue.

The first topic that is used to support the editorial is the fact that MSC was given a red light rating by the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). This organization gives universities and colleges around the nation a rating based on the policies of the campus. If a school is given a green light they are considered free speech friendly. If the school is given a red light they are said to be committing large violations of free speech rights.

After doing some basic investigative journalism on FIRE’s website it is easy to see that the organizations ratings for any school are ungrounded. Once looking at every state in the nation only a little over ten schools were given a green light rating. All the rest were given a yellow or red light rating, including schools like New York University and University of Northern Colorado.

The website also never explains how each school was given a rating. The only evidence that it uses to support its claims are policies in student handbooks. After looking at the policies that the organization uses to justify both red and green school ratings, every school had almost the exact same policies.

For example one of the reasons MSC was rated red was because of it’s policy on sexual harassment that states, “Sexual Harassment can be defined as un-welcomed sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.” At the same time the University of Arizona was given a green light rating for the same sexual harassment policy that states, “(Sexual harassment is defined as) making sexual advances, requesting sexual favors, or otherwise discriminating on the basis of gender in a manner that unlawfully creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive … environment.” These policies are so similar in wording that it proves the logic behind this whole entire rating scale is inaccurate and should not be used in an argument that claims MSC infringes on its student’s First Amendment rights.

The second topic in the editorial that addresses a completely different issue is the fact that all interviews have to be approved by Dana Nunn. The editorial claims that this little extra amount of leg work infringes on the Criterions duty of being a campus watchdog. Being a fellow journalism student I fully understand the importance of this duty of the newspaper. At the same time the fact that interviews have to go through Dana Nunn makes complete sense. She is the Media Relation Director of the college, she is just doing her job by setting up interviews. In fact, almost every large cooperation has an individual whose responsibility it is to answer the media’s questions. Media Relation Directors are there to help reporters get in touch with the right people for the story. They are not the enemy.

This editorial makes some pretty hefty claims that are not backed up. MSC does not infringe on the rights of any students because of policies that are set in place to protect us. For the sake of journalism alone, next time I would suggest that editorial writers go beyond the surface of an issue to get all the facts straight. After all, that’s what it takes to be a journalist.

-Katie Schultz, Student