"For gay student, Rutgers proves to be a haven"

[mkollar]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
You're certainly right that only the University can speak for the University. But that's not the problem. The problem is that others within the University will give their own account of what Rutgers is doing, and why it is doing it. There's no way to prevent that. And the media person is free to imply that their accounts are more correct than the "official version." After all, do you believe Obama necessarily when he says that we are doing X for reason Y. Others are free to say, "no really Obama is doing A for reason B." That's just part of the journalistic process.

Actually, there is a way to address this... and there always has been. The University must provide a clear, definitive narrative that is based in fact and reference, not opinion, to all involved in the event or situation. It continues to humor me that we, as a research university, are still tone deaf to this quality form of media relations.

Certainly there are many in media - a la Steve Politi - who want to imply they know more. All the more, it needs to be the responsibility of Media Relations at the University to debunk those claims with facts and references, not the simpering BS we've wallowed in and certainly not the "You're not right because I say so" lines of certain others. "Journalistic Process" as it is understood in the field is hardly being shown today. Over the last 30 years it has been rare to find the tenets that Pew Research throws around in their "Principles of Journalism." Instead, we continue to get the manifold opinion pieces masquerading as "in-depth analysis."

Ultimately, Media Relations - and by extension the Office of the Chancellors overseeing the aspects of the University involved - have a demonstrable responsibility to ensure that the message being delivered is not based on opinion or personal points of view. It needs to be based in fact. Part of that effort - in fact most of that effort - involves making certain that everyone at the University is on the same page and clearly aware of all aspects of the situation being discussed. Whether, for example, it is a member of the custodial crew setting up the chairs for commencement, faculty in attendance, or the commencement speakers, all need to be made clearly aware of the person to whom they are to refer questions to and the specific information - topic, content, and citations - that will be of value to them. In turn, this provides the Office of Media Relations and Communications the way to clearly distinguish the facts they are providing from the opinions that others wish to state along with the sufficient basis to flak them where there is clear error or outright intentional lies.

Without question the University does not have any standing to fire someone for stating their opinion. Likewise, there is the reality that the University does have every right to terminate those who undermine the standing of the University after intentionally providing or stating lies after having been provided clear information that details the facts and includes reference sources that confirm the same.

 

[retired711]

In an organization this large, particularly in a university, there is no way to have everyone on the same page. Some people just plain will not believe the university's spokespersons. There are, for instance, matters on which I believe the University's spokepersons (including Big Bob Barchi) misstate reality, and that's putting it nicely. And I am far from the only one. There is no effective way to keep folks like me from talking to the press and giving *our* versions of reality, and our opinions of what the University is doing and why it is doing it.

This post was edited on 5/22 7:01 PM by camdenlawprof

 

[NotInRHouse]

I'm really not worried about professors speaking outside of Killingsworth and the rest of the RU10. But if the SL insists on talking to them, be sure to point out he goes to Michigan games actively so the hypocrite that he is is evident.

The problem is more that the SL makes a narrative and uses "stories" to fit the narrative, not blabbering from within.

 

[retired711]

Who is Killingsworth? Has he succeeded Dowling on the list of devils? I never heard of him before.

Of course the S-L makes narratives. That's what it means to write a story. Every story, true as well as false, be it deliberately fiction nor not, is a narrative in which the speaker constructs the story he wants to tell.

 

[mkollar]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
In an organization this large, particularly in a university, there is no way to have everyone on the same page. Some people just plain will not believe the university's spokespersons. There are, for instance, matters on which I believe the University's spokepersons (including Big Bob Barchi) misstate reality, and that's putting it nicely. And I am far from the only one. There is no effective way to keep folks like me from talking to the press and giving *our* versions of reality, and our opinions of what the University is doing and why it is doing it.

This post was edited on 5/22 7:01 PM by camdenlawprof

While I appreciate your POV, there is a simple reality that explodes this myth: Other Big Ten, Pac14, SEC, and ACC schools. Placement of people on the same page across the organization begins and ends with a clearly stated set of goals and objectives that orients all publics - employees (administration, faculty, staff), consumers (students, interested outside entities), and supporters (alumni, friends, donors, contractors) to the mission and purpose of the organization.

That has already been instilled on the academic side at Rutgers with the "http://universitystrategy.rutgers.edu. Bluntly, if you are an employee of the organization, these are the three most critical elements of what should be driving your efforts to support and advance the University. If you are at odds with these elements, you really need to have done some major research to prove what is wrong with them, not just that you don't like or agree with them. We all know that positions based in fact and research will always be more readily accepted specifically because it shows there is research to back it up. Those who want their opinion are welcome to it. But unless there is proof you cheapen your own position and, ultimately, render your voice mute and discounted within the historical discussion while those who ascribe to University Message are accepted and advance.

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
I'm really not worried about professors speaking outside of Killingsworth and the rest of the RU10. But if the SL insists on talking to them, be sure to point out he goes to Michigan games actively so the hypocrite that he is is evident.

The problem is more that the SL makes a narrative and uses "stories" to fit the narrative, not blabbering from within.

Exactly! However, I will say Mark Killingsworth is already failing at his own messaging as he is unwilling to accept the reality of the reductions of subsidies that have already taken place. The insistence of the SL to cobble together words to fit their "story" becomes the downfall of the paper when the University is fully able to point out for the rest of the world exactly how fallacious the "story" is relative to the actual facts. However, it is mission critical for the Office of Media Relations and Communications to ensure the PRs that do go out for each topic, situation or event are clear, brief, with quality researched facts that ensure a quality message as well. From time to time I still see that slipping.

 

[jcg878]

Originally posted by mkollar:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
In an organization this large, particularly in a university, there is no way to have everyone on the same page. Some people just plain will not believe the university's spokespersons. There are, for instance, matters on which I believe the University's spokepersons (including Big Bob Barchi) misstate reality, and that's putting it nicely. And I am far from the only one. There is no effective way to keep folks like me from talking to the press and giving *our* versions of reality, and our opinions of what the University is doing and why it is doing it.

This post was edited on 5/22 7:01 PM by camdenlawprof

While I appreciate your POV, there is a simple reality that explodes this myth: Other Big Ten, Pac14, SEC, and ACC schools. Placement of people on the same page across the organization begins and ends with a clearly stated set of goals and objectives that orients all publics - employees (administration, faculty, staff), consumers (students, interested outside entities), and supporters (alumni, friends, donors, contractors) to the mission and purpose of the organization.

Is there evidence of this? I have a hard time believing that Rutgers is unique in having this issue. Universities are just too big and burly to have the kind of control that some people seem to want.

Originally posted by mkollar:

We all know that positions based in fact and research will always be more readily accepted specifically because it shows there is research to back it up.Those who want their opinion are welcome to it. But unless there is proof you cheapen your own position and, ultimately, render your voice mute and discounted within the historical discussion while those who ascribe to University Message are accepted and advance.


Now I think we might be living on different planets. Case in point

 

[NotInRHouse]

Yes- Killingsworth is the inheritor of the Dowling "legacy" but actively goes to UM games where he went to school.

I think the media should be less about narratives, and more about straight up what happened. I think few if any outlets (maybe the BBC) report like that today...BUT there is a big space between there and trying to link a bunch of stray, mostly irrelevant crap, into a chain of activity, like the SL does. And they aren't alone in that, but they're the only ones that do it with RU.

 

[retired711]

I've literally never heard of Killingworth before this thread. Never.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Good- another sign of progress!

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by e5fdny:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by mkollar:

Originally posted by jcg878:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
MKollar, what you propose is unrealistic. No matter who much an institution stresses to its employees that "you should refer all inquiries to the proper individuals," leaks happen anyway. Some employees may have their own agendas. Some may disagree with the "official version." Universities have the special problem that tenured and tenure-track professors can say what they like and can't be punished for it. Nor can students be punished. Rutgers does need to control the message better, but there's a limit to what the university can do. It helps when the university makes sound decisions that can attract support among the rank and file. Rutgers, though, doesn't seem so good at this.

Right. Honestly Marc, I'm shocked to see you write that. You know far better than most how many voices there are within just one unit of the University. If the thought is that the University administration on the whole should be better at representing its own 'official voice', then I have no problem with that idea. But there are plenty of faculty, students, and others who will always disagree with what that voice is saying, and one of the intricacies that makes universities unique is that they have those open (often nasty) discussions even when it hurts the overall message that is ultimately portrayed.

Without question, freedom of speech and the right to speak openly and frankly regarding opinions are absolutely sacrosanct. Faculty and students speaking or writing about research or writing content for articles on any topic related to their area of study is certainly acceptable. Likewise, if they have an opposing viewpoint to University policy or wish to express dissatisfaction with a decision made by the University administration, they are certainly welcome to state what they want. But, it needs to be made clear they are speaking exclusively for themselves and not for the University in any capacity.

My issue is with those in administration and the differentiation that needs to be made between when a departmental administrator (dean, faculty chair, etc.) who is also a faculty member is attempting to speak for the University or claim to "speak for the faculty" under that title. Likewise, all - and by all I refer to everyone from a Custodial Agent III to the president - need to clearly understand they do not have any authority to speak on any topic unless specifically conveyed through prior written authorization.

The reality is that the AAUP/AFT unions make it adamantly clear that only the spokesperson for the union speaks for the union. Moreover, only those faculty or staff who are made available to the press are done so with very specific scripted comments in relation to a topic. That same approach needs to be taken by the University.

You're certainly right that only the University can speak for the University. But that's not the problem. The problem is that others within the University will give their own account of what Rutgers is doing, and why it is doing it. There's no way to prevent that. And the media person is free to imply that their accounts are more correct than the "official version." After all, do you believe Obama necessarily when he says that we are doing X for reason Y. Others are free to say, "no really Obama is doing A for reason B." That's just part of the journalistic process.

In the "real world" there are most certainly ways to prevent it or at least control the message by letting the person know the consequences of their actions.


That's not true. Leaks and non-conforming statements happen in *every* organization, be it a university, a governmental agency or a corporation. Finding out who leaked is terribly difficult. Indeed, every presidential administration works on ending or punishing leaks, and it never works. There is always going to be some anonymous source that can't be easily tracked down. It is worse in a university, where norms of academic freedom prevail, but the problem happens everywhere.

I wasn't really talking about leaks. Agree on those being hard to stop.

More of a rogue type thing.