Chris Clark
Features Editor

“I believe the recent action taken by Sheri Pe’a, vice president of Student Services, to remove Criterion Editor-in-Chief Mark Borgard was improper […] It is unfortunate that Mr. Borgard decided to print material that was lacking in journalistic value, but it is even more unfortunate that the administration is heading in a direction that violates First Amendment rights.”

So wrote Professor Byron Evers, then adviser of the Criterion, in an April 2, 1996, letter addressed to “MSC President Ray Kieft and General Public.”

Seventeen years later, Evers reflected on the events that inspired him to write the letter defending Borgard.

“What I defended was not what was published,” he said. “What I defended was his right as a student to publish it.”

Evers, Borgard, Pe’a and Kieft became the center of a months-long, community-wide controversy that saw coverage from both local and national press, inspired a First Amendment rally on campus and brought the issue of free expression on MSC’s campus to a head.

Anti-crite Superstar

Weeks ago, a Criterion reporter found a tattered, yellowing edition of a publication called the Anti-crite tucked away in the KMSA office. The edition was apparently published April 1, 1996, and comes with a warning emblazoned on the masthead: “CAUTION: IDIOTS MAY TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY!!! IT’S JUST A JOKE, FOOL!!!”

Some of the jokes in the issue are clear to any reader, like the innuendo-laden “Whorescopes” section.

Other jokes are pointed commentary directed at then-current campus news.

The lead photo, for instance, credited to Printsass Fuji, depicts a porta-potty in front of the college president’s temporary office. The caption includes a fictitious quote from the President of Menstrual State College.

‘“Had the Trustmees given me such a fine washroom, I would have never decided to step down,’ whined President Gay Queef.”

Ray Kieft, who was in the process of leaving the college, wasn’t the only campus figure apparently lampooned by the issue.

Another front-page story seemingly takes a pass at KMSA radio station, represented by the fictitious call letters ‘KSUX.’

An Associated Press article later quoted the manager of KMSA, Mark Kosmiski.

“‘I thought it was funny (and) it poked fun at me more than just about anybody else,’” he said.

You’re fired!

The edition of the Anti-crite was edited, published and distributed by Mark Borgard, who was then editor-in-chief of the Criterion. Nineteen ninety-six was a banner year for the Criterion, bringing $17,000 in advertising sales by April and contributing monies to other student organizations, Borgard said.

“I didn’t have any reservations,” Borgard said, recalling his decision to publish the Anti-crite. “We just did it. I didn’t talk to the adviser because I knew he’d say no.”

After receiving the printed copies of the Anti-crite, Borgard distributed them early the morning of April 1. By 7:30 a.m., the racks were full.

It wasn’t long before administration got ahold of the issue.

Sheri Pe’a, then Vice President of Student Services, found the issue “hysterical.”

One of the ads in the fake paper poked fun at Pe’a specifically.

“When I read it,” she recalled, “I was in tears laughing. It was fabulously done.”

Pea’s initial hysterics were soon tempered, though. Pressure from the community forced the administration to take action.

“That edition hit the street, and it wasn’t long before my phone was ringing off the hook,” Pe’a said. “There [was] a lot of community buy-in to that school. Those people care deeply about that school and how the rest of the state views the school.”

Kieft penned a letter reprimanding Borgard on April 2,1996.

“While I don’t claim to know all there is to know about the standards of professional journalism, those standards can’t be as low as the depth to which you went,” the letter read. “I will not be party to defending smut. I will not allow the embarrassment brought Mesa State College by this April fool [sic] edition to go unnoticed.”

Pe’a asked Evers to fire Borgard. Evers responded with a pair of memos elaborating on his role as the adviser, the right of students to determine the content of their own publications and the body of court decisions upholding those rights.

“I refuse to fire Criterion editor Mark Borgard,” concluded one of the memos.

Pe’a fired Borgard April 2, 1996.

“Personnel” reasons

“I knew he [Kieft] couldn’t fire me,” Borgard said.

He’s right. Student-run publications have protections similar to those of professional publications. As Evers pointed out in his memos, “First Amendment rights are guaranteed by our U.S. Constitution, and clearly the courts have ruled in favor of editors and student newspapers at state institutions when it involves content within the publication.”

Colorado is one of seven states with a statute granting additional protection to student expression. According to Colorado’s law, only obscene, libelous, false or probably disruptive content may be censored from publications in public schools.

Borgard’s Anti-crite may have been offensive, as several students acknowledged in Daily Sentinel articles and letters to the Criterion’s editor, but it didn’t meet criteria necessary to permit administrative censorship.

Amidst the legal issues, an insidious subtext arose.

Kosmiski wrote a letter to the Criterion editor questioning the motives of the administration.

“It is well known that the current administration and Mr. Borgard have knocked heads in the past,” he wrote. “Is this the final culmination of an entire year’s worth of bad feelings?”

Other letters expressed similar concerns.

“As usual,” wrote Philip K. Hayes, “Pe’a has usurped the power and authority that should belong to students[…] she recklessly fired Borgard citing “personnel” reason. [sic]”

Pe’a had told the Daily Sentinel that the firing had “nothing to do with the content of the April Fools’ paper.” She said the decision was based on Borgard’s use and management of student fees, which funded the printing of the Anti-crite.

Borgard’s editorials make it clear that the Criterion prided itself as a watchdog publication. One of his columns recounts the numerous controversial issues that the publication covered, from an allegedly incestuous Student Body President to a campus-wide ban on bicycles.

He recounted, in his view, the policy of the Kieft administration.

“1. See the Problem

2. Overreact to the problem

3. Make drastic changes

4. Then Sweep the mess Under the Rug”

Plucked

The administration’s actions drew the ire of members of the student body, who organized a First Amendment rally April 3, 1996.

According to a Daily Sentinel article, students were invited to sign a petition to reinstate Borgard.

“The Criterion is owned by students,” student council presidential candidate Kasia Iwaniczko told the Sentinel. “They didn’t go through the media board. We strongly believe that because the students were not consulted it was unfair to fire a student employee.”

Borgard spoke during the rally.

“I’m doing this now for every student organization on campus,” he said, according to the Sentinel. “If they can pluck me, they can go anywhere and pluck anybody.”

Kosmiski shared these concerns with the Associated Press.

“It worries me to think that if they can do this to the Criterion they can do it to KMSA,” he said.

Borgard said later that he realized the larger implications of his firing at this point.

“They [the students] really rallied to our cause,” he said. “I understood that the issue was much bigger than me or the staff or any organization.”

Borgard didn’t have the entire campus’ support though. The Student Body Association voted in favor of a resolution calling for Borgard’s apology.

SBA President Tim Pollard wrote to the Criterion that “by an overwhelming majority” the general assembly “[drew] the line at frivolous obscenity that serves no purpose but to see what a college newspaper can get away with.”

Another letter from Brian Schaer says “I left a copy [of the Anti-crite] on my floor and was surprised to find that my dog didn’t chew it up. I guess he has more taste.”

You’re not fired!

“Effective immediately,” Ray Kieft wrote in an April 8, 1996, memo to Mark Borgard, “I am reinstating you as the editor of The Criterion. In a concurrent MSC press release, Kieft said that he was “strongly advised” by the Trustee’s legal staff to reinstate Borgard in order to dispel concerns about First Amendment violations.

“I want the College community to focus on what the administration believes to be the improper business practices, unprofessional conduct and poor judgment,” he said in the release.

Included with the memo was a letter to the Media Board, an administrative policy-making body for student media. The letter requested that Media Board complete a performance evaluation of Borgard at their next meeting.

Borgard said that he was “freaked out” by the letter.

“He has all these lawyers from Denver,” he said. “I thought, ‘How am I gonna defend myself?’”

Borgard’s solution was unorthodox. As chair of Media Board, he had the power to schedule meetings, so he postponed the scheduled meeting until April 25, just a week before his tenure as editor was to end.

“I apologize for moving the meeting,” he wrote in a memo to the other members, “but I must be given time to put together an adequate defense on my firing last week.”

Kieft weighed in on the rescheduling with the Sentinel.

“I didn’t realize he was chair,” Kieft said, “which to me looks like a conflict of interest.”

Evers recalled that when the Board did finally meet, they did not choose to fire Borgard, but did advise him to apologize.

“You can fire an editor over some things, but not the content,” Evers said.

Borgard said he was “slapped on the hand and told not to do it again.”

“We shook the campus up a little bit”

Signed “Criterion Staff,” a copy block in the corner of the student paper’s April 17,1996 contains apparently the only recorded apology for the Anti-crite.

“While we believe that many of the students at Mesa State enjoyed the joke issue, we also understand that some found the issue offensive,” it reads. “And to those students, we apologize.”

Borgard’s weekly columns never quite apologized.

The closest he got was in the April 17, 1996, edition: “I accept full responsibility for publishing every issue of the Crite this year, including the infamous Anti-Crite issue.”

Even today, Borgard remains unapologetic.

“I really enjoyed the whole thing. I really loved watching him [Kieft] squirm,” he said. “When I look back at it, I’m happy about it. We crossed the line, but at the same time, we shook the campus up a little bit.”

crclark2@mavs.coloradomesa.edu