Last semester, GVSU administrators surveyed students to ask what the

university should aspire to be. In considering qualities and defining

missions, I never thought certain fundamental functions — such as

champion of free speech or free thought — were up for discussion. They

were “givens.”

But nothing is a given, and at times it becomes

necessary for students to re-earn and again justify the necessity of

these rights.

On Dec. 5, the Lanthorn ran “No More Billboards” an editorial responding to Carly Simpson’s article, “A public university run by private donations.”

As Simpson reported that 31 new rooms had been named after donors just

this year, the editorial questioned whether the increasing presence of

donor names on campus buildings hinders GVSU’s mission as a public

university.

We considered the implication of the strikingly

numerous “naming opportunities” — as Vice President for University

Development Karen Loth described them — and what they represent: a level

of administrative attachment to and association with donors that could

trump dedication to students. Our original thought was that perhaps in

the future, if the naming trend becomes even more excessive, academic

integrity and freedom could be sacrificed.

We were also concerned

that private companies might take a place of honor above academic

giants, such as our own deans and professors, who have committed their

lives to the university and our education.

This was never meant to

belittle the benevolence of donors or express ungratefulness; the

donors are, as the editorial states, obviously generous people without

whom the university could not have grown and succeeded to the extent

that it has — especially as government support fails to meet our needs.

Instead,

the purpose of the editorial was to consider the consequences of

increasing attachment to private entities on the part of the

administration. This attachment, again, would not in and of itself be a

bad thing. The Lanthorn only hypothesized that excessive attachment

might discourage students from speaking freely if that speech could

adversely affect university fundraising.

The negative and personal responses to that Dec. 5 editorial entirely proved our point.

Just

before exams began, I was contacted by three of GVSU’s top

administrators; one called my private cell phone, and the other two

co-wrote a message that was sent to my student email account and

published in the “Dec. 9

issue”:http://www.lanthorn.com/article/2014/01/responses-to-the-dec-5-editorial

. They had similar complaints.

In the two messages, the

administrators said the Lanthorn staff is clearly “ungrateful” to donors

as evidenced by its “disappointing” editorial, and it did a “disservice

to students” with its disrespect. They suggested that, perhaps because

of these offenses, my colleagues and I are undeserving of our

merit-based scholarships and should relinquish them “for reissuance to

students who would be more appreciative of our donors.” The three

administrators suggested further that the editors recant the message of

the editorial and that, rather than challenging policy regarding donors,

we write editorials thanking them ( “such as the Sept. 5 editorial

found here on

www.issuu.com/grandvalleylanthorn”:http://issuu.com/grandvalleylanthorn/docs/issue_5_7fe0464d6595b9

).

To recap: at our liberal arts university, which preaches free

and critical thought, there is at least one topic not up for honest

debate and discussion. And, if anyone disagrees with the views of a few

administrators, they should remain quiet and know that their dissent

renders them undeserving of their financial aid.

Now, based on the

administrative responses, I could take this opportunity to discuss the

freedom of the press. I could also deliver the age-old lecture about

freedom of speech and how public institutions — above all, universities —

should protect this principle. And I could also point out that the

administrators neglected to address any point made in the Dec. 5

editorial.

But this is not about freedom of the press. After all, I

was admonished not as editor-in-chief Lizzy Balboa, but as private

student Lizzy Balboa.

And this is not so much about freedom of

speech. The complaint was not about expression of ideas; it was about

the ideas, themselves — an “ungrateful” attitude.

And this is not

even so much about the December editorial. A new issue has arisen: the

business model of education appears to be valued over education, itself.

Based

on the, quite frankly, over-the-top reaction against the editorial, it

seems that some administrators have lost sight of one of the primary

responsibilities of a university — no less one that champions the

liberal arts. These few are beginning to put money and donor interest

above learning and student interest, and they are making personal calls

to discourage critical thinking for the sake of placating donors (who I

would like to think invested in our education because they believed in

its mission, not in its marketing opportunities).

They are

creating a system that discourages dissent, promotes consensus and

suggests that financial aid be contingent upon thoughtless allegiance to

themselves and the donors they have secured. Is this attitude conducive

to the critical thinking demanded of a liberal arts education? I think

not.

What we at the Lanthorn want to encourage and exemplify is

open debate. We want to inspire not only honest development of

individual opinion but courageous expression of the opinion — regardless

of whether or not we agree with it. In the spirit of this debate, I

encourage professors, staff and students to submit letters to the editor

to express their personal views on this matter or any other (free

speech, increased presence of donor names on campus, etc.).

In the

meantime, the Lanthorn staff and I will continue to express our

opinions and will not miss an opportunity to question authority for the

benefit of the students. Instead, we will promote honest discussion and

critical thinking.

So back to the original question: what should

GVSU aspire to be? It should be a marketplace of ideas — both popular

and unpopular — and an environment that encourages my fellow students

and me to retain our individual opinions. I want not to fear punishment

for exercising the skills that my professors work hard to inspire. And I

want the leaders of my university not to agree with everything I think,

but to defend valiantly my right to think it.