Web exclusive: Status of MSU’s School of Journalism director still uncertain

I thought this was MSU’s STUDENT newspaper. What are students saying about this?

Whitten should be allowed to comment and explain her decision. I know that this article says that she referred all comments to Denbow, but this probably was after the students started making offensive questions. This is more evident since most reporters in The SN come for the J-School and probably they feel offended by Whitten’s decision.

But, from a non journalism major, I think they should allow Whitten to comment freely, without questions, about her early decision.

I’ve been seen all this “save msu jrn” campaign and I don’t like it. First of all, because we don’t know the intentions of Dr. Whitten since she hasn’t supported her decision. Secondly, we don’t know how a change in the position the director of the School will change the curriculum and the programs. From my knowledge, the faculty is the one that drives a college, a school, or any program since it is them who vote to take different academic actions. Third, this is not like Briggs-Bunting will leave MSU. After all, she has expressed that she will remain as a professor.

So, either The SN knows more than what they are writing or the students are just desperate for nothing.

I hope this can be resolved with the goal of improving Michigan State University.

so… the students are inappropriate for demanding answers???

That’s really all we want – Answers. To know why this decision was made and to know what direction Whitten wants to take for the school. We have a right to know that, and Whitten is showing blatant disrespect for not only Jane Briggs-Bunting, but also the faculty and the students by her silence. It’s incredibly disheartening.

Whitten has had plenty of opportunities – she still does! – to issue a statement explaining her actions. Just because people are asking her tough questions doesn’t mean she should shore up into silence. That doesn’t show leadership; that shows cowardice.

What would you rather us students do – sit back and do nothing? Say “Yes, ma’am. We agree, ma’am. We won’t dare talk back or ask questions, ma’am.”

That’s NOT what journalists do.
We ask questions.
We pursue the truth.

Student:
Multiple attempts have been made to contact Dean Whitten’s office to ask for clarification of her desire to take the J-School into a “new direction.” These phone calls were made Thursday morning before the “Save MSUJRN” site launched and before the Facebook group was started. Even then, all questions were referred back to University Relations.

Why should a leader be able to comment on decisions without question? You obviously do not understand the watchdog function of the press. The free press operating within a democratic system provides an additional check against abuses of power (and I am not implying that what is currently going on is an abuse of power.) If we expand on what you are suggesting, we would not ask any person in power to explain their actions and instead take everything at face value.

I wonder what you define as an “offensive question.” As an employee of a public university that is partially supported through tuition and taxes – which, mind you are paid for by students – we do reserve the right to ask questions. Do you find it offense to wonder what the future holds for your program of study or how it will be impacted by a rapidly changing industry?

It is extremely unlikely that Dean Whitten is unwilling to speak with the staff of the State News because of the mere fact that some of them are journalism majors. I think you are grossly uniformed about journalistic ethics and the cornerstone of the profession. I am in no ways defending all of the editorial choices of the State News, but in this case they have simply reported that Dean Whitten was unwilling to clarify her position to the press.

With a tentative curriculum making its way through the administration the lack of clear leadership supporting the program makes all the difference in the world. It is not enough to be supported by the faculty – the new program must be vetted by multiple bodies on campus before it is implemented. There needs to be a strong, authoritarian figure in place to act as an advocate for these changes.

I am currently employed in a large metropolitan newsroom and trust me – we need changes in journalism education NOW. The next generation of journalists that will help the transition from a mostly printed press to a digital distribution of news are sorely needed. We can not delay a new curriculum by even a year and as of now all changes to the program are currently on hold.

The damage would be done if the curriculum at MSU did not evolve with the changing industry. Changes are happening at such a fast rate that any delay in improving the education of students would put them at a disadvantage within the job market. We are fighting to ensure the viability of the program in the effort to produce the next generation of journalists.

I think we all know who “student” voted for in the 2004 election…

Kerry, obviously.

I find this entire article hilarious. To me it just sounds like The State News is protecting its own. How many times have other faculty and or directors been demoted or let go? Does The State News ever report on them? Unless it involves a controversy it is usually not reported. To me this simply sounds like a change in leadership that a new dean has a right to do. Obviously many individuals and students are upset about Whitten’s choice. Do you actual think Whitten is going to respond though when this article is extremely biased making it look like Briggs-Bunting is a helpless victim at the will of Whitten? Since journalists “search the truth” why are the ones complaining not looking into the performance of Briggs-Bunting and report what she did in her past six years. It appears that she is being let go because Whitten did not like her performance during her six year term. Look at both sides of the story instead of crying poor Briggs-Bunting.

- Jane successfully led the J-School through a reaccreditation process.

- Jane successfully led changes to core J-School courses to ensure they were teaching the latest skills in multimedia journalism.

- Jane has successfully served as a beloved mentor and leader to both her students and faculty. The thousands at CAS’s spring commencement saw that with the rousing ovation Jane received from the journalism students.

…. and on and on and on. Jane has done a wonderful job as director and there is no reason she should be dismissed.

A half-dozen different media outlets are onto this story besides The State News – and ALL of them have reached out to Whitten, but Whitten refuses to comment. That’s HER choice.

So don’t say that both sides of the story aren’t being told – they are, with what information that is available. Again, if Whitten doesn’t want to explain herself, that’s HER choice. Albeit, a stupid and irresponsible one.

The Save MSU Journalism campaign filed Freedom of Information Act paperwork on Monday to obtain the performance reviews of both Jane Briggs-Bunting and Pamela Whitten. Once we receive these records we will publish them to our site. While we do not know exactly what these records will show – we do expect that they will give a good indication of how university leadership gauged the performance and results of Briggs-Bunting.

As a longtime alumnus (full disclosure: not Journalism) and steady contributor to MSU, I am dismayed by the lack of clarity surrounding this situation. I recognize there are two sides to any story, and I am sure we are not getting a full explanation from either side. Alumni and students, particularly those from the School of Journalism deserve this. Without trying to take sides, I have the following comments and questions:
1. If Jane Briggs-Bunting feels confident in her performance and role, then can’t she sign a release giving the University the ability to comment on her “personnel matter”?
2. If alumni are as concerned about this as it seems, they need to take advantage of the fact that Universities behave like prostitutes. A formal campaign to demand answers to questions in return for consideration of continued financial support should be waged. If there is a highly influential alumnus/alumnae who shares the group’s concerns, then this person/people need to exert their pocketbook influence. (Note: this can cut both ways … it may be an influential alumnus/alumnae who did not support Jane Briggs-Bunting who may have precipitated this).
3. If the University is concerned about transparency and answering to their constituents (students, alumni, taxpayers, etc.), they should offer Jane Briggs-Bunting a legal release to comment freely (but honestly) about any of the matters surrounding this situation. With this release, the U should agree to not pursue any retribution in terms of actions they take against her for comments. (The U is all for academic freedom, letting Jane Briggs-Bunting comment freely shouldn’t be a problem, should it?)
4. Pamela Whitten, with the support of the University administration, may very well have made a decision to remove Jane Briggs-Bunting with or without cause. I assume it is possible that it is the University’s prerogative to reassign a Dean/Director without cause. If her removal is without cause, however, it is not the University’s prerogative to remove a Dean/Director who seems as popular and effective as Jane Briggs-Bunting without explanation. The U owes it to its constituents to explain the circumstances surrounding this situation so these constituents can make an informed decision as to whether they wish to support the School of Journalism and College of Communications Arts and Sciences in the future. The U can’t have it both ways … making a change without explanation and expecting continued support from its alumni base or retention of students who may not wish to be part of the program going into the future.

Jane, give MSU your personal release to comment on this “personnel matter”. MSU, give Jane a release committing to no retribution for commenting. MSU, give your constituents what they deserve … an explanation.

MSU may want to heed journalistic history … In Watergate, the coverup was more damaging than the crime.

I just have one comment…DUH. Why on earth would journalists report on things that happen all the time? OF COURSE TSN is resporting on this BECAUSE it’s a contraversy.

But…agreed. No crying “poor JBB.” She has already hired a lawyer, of course Whitten is going to be hush-hush…because she’s not stupid.

I don’t like this and I agree yes we are JRN students we should ask questions, but I understand why Whitten is doing this. Like I said, she’s not stupid and doesn’t want a lawsuit slapped on her.

I completely agree with Aaron on why it’s important for us to continue to ask questions. As a journalism junior, the hold that has been put on our curriculum directly affects me. This is about our education and our future careers as journalists. While it is probably in Whitten’s best interest not to comment right now, some statement supporting her decision should be given. I think it’s very questionable that she would make such a huge decision without informing the staff and students in the journalism department. As far as TSN covering the story, I think they’re doing what they can with the information being given. It’s true that other newspapers are covering this story, but from what I’ve read, no new information is being uncovered.

Well, it’s good to have out in the open yet another lie told to us by the academic establishment: the illusion that you’re somehow politically insulated by tenure. You’ll only get tenure if you play ball with the hard-liners who want you instructing students to think in a very specific way (double-think). If you snuck your way into tenure then reveal your real valiant purposes, you’ll be rendered incapable of doing your job because of actions of your fascist colleagues. God Bless America.

THE ONLY THING THAT I KNOW FOR SURE IS THAT: The Status of MSU’s School of Journalism director, is still uncertain. Now that is something to be certain about! “LIGHTBULB” idea…

I am perplexed at the decisions of both Terry Denbow and Pamela Whitten to not comment on the story. I am even more perplexed at the reporter’s decision not to include comments by students. After all, the education is about the students, regardless of who is leading it! Because I do not know the reasons for Jane Briggs-Bunting’s request for removal of journalism dean, I see it as more of a “personal” issue, not a “personnel” issue. Briggs-Bunting has worked very hard with members of the journalism faculty to advance journalism education to the forefront of the industry. To take her away from this role is insulting to the advancement of journalism education. In this case, no comments from Whitten means bad news for MSU journalism students. Whitten, you better come up with answers soon because we, as students, faculty and recent alumni, demand them now!

As a J-School alum about to return to the graduate program, I am a bit concerned.
I have been away in the military for a number of years so I am not sure of the politics involved here, but I did graduate under Briggs-Bunting’s watch the first time, and found myself well-prepared for the journalism world.
I hope this does not become a tedious, drawn-out fight, as that will directly affect the students and the J-School program as a whole, especially the new curriculum.
Please resolve this issue as soon as possible so everything can return to normal and the sudents can continue to learn without distraction.

I hope Zane McMillin is not a student of MSU’s Journalism school. Such a biased article. If Zane is then I’d recommend we fire the head of the MSU journalism school. Oh wait…

How is Zane being biased? The university REFUSES to comment when they’ve had PLENTY chances. It’s their own fault they aren’t telling their side.

and p.s. you are not funny.

This article doesn’t have the answer. Boring. Ioo bad people here don’t know how to laugh, ha.;(

No, at least I hope not. It is better to be a team, helping others, being supportive, working together… rather than an “Audience of One”…good song by the way.

Don’t want to mispell, to many good writers here, journalists..cool.

By Audience of One. Good Song. Maybe it could be the theme song for this article?