Eric Langborgh

    Universities in New Jersey, Texas, Ohio, and California have all fallen victim to newspaper thefts by disgruntled individuals and groups over the past few weeks. From political disagreement to pranks to anger with an unflattering article, the reasons why the attempts at silencing the publications occured are varied. Although the circumstances surrounding the newspaper thefts are quite different, a common denominator in each of the thefts is silence from administrators and faculty. 
The string of newspaper thefts, observers say, represents a growing trend within higher education to silence, rather than debate, those that put forward dissenting views. The shouting down of speakers, name-calling,  and sensitivity training are other manifestations of a mentality the replaces discourse with measures aimed at stifling debate. 
Texas Christian University, Rutgers, Ohio State, Cal State-Sacramento, Yale, and the University of Missouri are just a few of the schools that have witnessed major instances of newspaper thefts this semester. 

Newspapers Barricade Hornet’s Nest
Bomb threats, verbal harassment, and the physical transport of nearly 3,000 copies of their own paper back to their front door greeted the State Hornet editorial staff in protest on October 7. The California State University, Sacramento student newspaper’s staff was confronted by hundreds of protestors decrying the “insensitivity” and “stereotyping” of Latinos by the newspaper.
    At issue was a picture in that day’s paper depicting an Hispanic man being dragged off by cops following a brawl at a September football game. Though no papers were actually thrown away, thousands were removed from the 36 racks around campus as the protestors marched to the Hornet’s office and barricaded the staff in by stacking the bundles by the office door.
Strangely, university officials claimed they had no knowledge of this well-reported incident.
No damages were reported, and the only cost was the day’s delay to the student readership, as all the copies were returned to their racks the following day. No further demonstrations took place, though a bomb threat was subsequently phoned in and the staff was treated to much verbal harassment as they walked about campus for the next few days. “That quickly dissipated, though, thank goodness!” exclaimed news editor Elizabeth DePalma.
Surprisingly, the paper’s staff found the demonstration acceptable. “It [the heist] was done publicly as a symbol of protest,” DePalma insisted, “and we thought that was fine.”
The newly formed United Students for Action (USA) presented Hornet editor-in-chief David Sommers with a list of demands on November 2, including: a front page apology for running the photo; the creation of a copy editor and photo consultant “to develop a policy regarding selection and printing of photographs and headings”; more “minority experience” articles; the addition of minority staff to “significant positions”; the addition of a faculty advisor; and a one-day cultural sensitivity workshop for the staff.
Sommers replied in the negative.
However, there was nothing malicious regarding the placement of the photo in the paper. “In retrospect, we felt that we were portraying the incident that occurred,” conveyed DePalma. “We did not look at the ethnicity of the person.”
The “incident” was a fight at the football game in which three spectators—all Latinos—were arrested for shoving and verbally harassing police officers attempting to break up a brawl between the three.
The photo appeared in the Hornet as a side bar in support of a story regarding a CSUS alumnus’ push for a joint community, police, and university task force to investigate ways to increase safety and improve parking at large, crowded sporting events. The catalyst for the alumnus’ action was his witness of the fight just a few rows in front of him two weeks earlier.
“They just looked at the photo isolating that itself,” explained DePalma. “It was not a sensitivity issue.”

Dislike an Editorial? Then Steal the Newspaper
In an especially egregious case, the stifling of political opposition appears to be the motive behind the theft of the Daily Skiff at Texas Christian University (TCU). Nearly all of the November 2, 4,700-issue press run featuring a voter’s guide were taken by forces aligned with a candidate for student president that was not supported by the publication, the paper’s editors charged.
The eight-page insert, entitled “Student Government Association Elections 1999 Voter’s Guide,” featured candidate profiles and editorial staff endorsements for the following day’s SGA election.
Remarked Ben Jenkins, the endorsed presidential candidate and eventual winner, “It’s a sad statement that people feel they can have their voice heard in this way. It hurts every candidate.”
Assistant Chief J.C. Williams of the TCU police department refused to speculate on the motives or the possible identities of the suspects. “It is still too early to comment on what will transpire in this investigation,” Williams told Campus Report.
Early in the morning of the election issue’s distribution, an unknown number of suspects removed every stack of Skiffs scattered in different buildings throughout the TCU campus, except for the issues stacked immediately outside the newsroom. Even on floors just above and below the Skiff offices, issues disappeared, with the paper found only in one nearby trash bin. All others are unaccounted for. An untold number of issues were also stolen from the following day’s reprint, bringing the total damages to approximately $1,850, Williams said.
“It had to be a very orchestrated effort to have removed 4,600 papers from such a large area in half an hour,” asserted Skiff campus editor, Kristen Naquin.
“It looks like it was clearly several students,” confirmed Williams, though he added, “two or three students could conceivably have done it.”
Indeed, in the November 3,  Skiff article highlighting the crime, Naquin laid out the possibility that it was the fraternity one disgruntled presidential candidate belonged to that may have been behind a conspiracy to silence the endorsement of a rival candidate. Among the charges leveled against candidate Walker Moody’s Phi Kappa Sigma (PKS) fraternity: eyewitness accounts of certain individuals wearing the fraternity’s letters knocking over candidate Jenkins’ campaign posters; a heated rivalry between PKS and Jenkins’ Pi Kappa Phi (PKP) fraternity; and an alleged pattern of paper thefts that coincidentally occur whenever the paper prints negative stories surrounding PKS. The article pointed to the last time Skiff issues were stolen in bulk on April 24, 1998, when the lead story discussed a PKS member’s arrest for stealing a sign from a local bar.
“I guess it’s kind of a tradition,” Naquin suggested. “At least that’s my suspicion.”
But PKS president Marcus Craig took issue with that assessment. “That’s pure speculation,” declared Craig. He swore that he talked with every member of his fraternity and all denied wrongdoing. 
Was there tension? “Any time you have two members running opposed to one another there is going to be tension,” Craig answered, adding that PKS held “no personal vendettas.”
While not pointing his finger at PKP, Craig viewed the allegations against his fraternity as a “ploy by whoever is against our candidate.”
TCU police have questioned Moody, but other PKS members, including Craig, have yet to be called. TCU police refused to divulge any further information on other possible suspects.
The University has thus far been silent on the issue.

Pranksters Run Amok at Rutgers
Entire press runs of two papers were stolen, with another periodical also a possible victim, at Rutgers University last month. Two thousand five hundred copies each of the Caellian and the Rutgers Review were taken before they even had the chance to be distributed during the week of November 1-5. Bulk quantities of the Green Print were allegedly carried off, too, according to one eyewitness.
Rutgers police “have witnesses who saw persons carry out both sets of papers individually,” offered Lt. Rhonda Harris, who told Campus Report that while the investigation continues, almost all leads have been exhausted.
The Caellian claimed $800 in damages, though Douglass College dean Joan Lemoine compensated the bi-weekly paper for a second printing.
“Our newspapers had just been delivered by the printer 15 minutes earlier and we were on our way to pick them up” when they were stolen, editor Mere Ours said.
Meanwhile, the Rutgers Review had its entire stock of their weekly issue stolen in a similar manner. Damages reported were $300, none of which the paper has recovered.
Many copies of The Green Print were also seen being taken away from its racks on campus, though neither the police nor the paper could verify that any had actually been stolen. 
“I can’t jump to any conclusions,” insisted the Review’s editor, Alex Moore. Though Miss Ours and the police simply discounted the thefts as a prank, Moore conceded the thefts “could have been politically-motivated,” noting the controversial nature of the three politically-charged papers.
Still, the consensus is that the crimes were most likely the result of an initiation ritual some group members were required to do. 
; Making light of the incident, the headline in the Review’s next issue read, “Steal This Newspaper.”

Fanatic Employee Cuffs Critics
A poor won-loss record had Buckeye fans already blue, but when Ohio State University’s (OSU) student newspaper chose to highlight that fact for its Homecoming issue, one fan took matters in his own hands.
OSU athletic department marketing associate Chad Schroeder received the delivery of the Lantern’s October 30  issue with the Homecoming Game insert and promptly tossed them in the trash. Though only a small portion of the almost 45,000 copies printed, the 7,500 copies disposed of constituted the allotted amount for distribution around the football stadium.
“The entire stack of papers was gone,” said Joe Fox, circulation manager for the Lantern. “Nothing like this has ever happened before.”
According to Fox, Schroeder had asked on Friday that the paper’s “First Down” issue not be distributed near the stadium because the athletic department didn’t like the cover. The cover consisted of a picture of dejected-looking OSU players sitting on the bench with the scores of their lost games written overhead. The headline read, “Lost Dreams.”
Athletic department director Andy Geiger disagreed with that story, however. “He may not have liked the cover, but that had nothing to do with it,” he argued.
Geiger denied anyone else in the department was involved with the decision to trash the papers. He claims that Schroeder acted on his own.
“I took Andy Geiger at his word saying it was an individual’s mistake, and that’s how we are going to leave it,” Lantern business manager Ray Catalino told Campus Report.
Still, the mistake was not due to Schroeder’s distaste, Geiger said, but to a misunderstanding of distribution procedures. “They [the Lantern] are requested to deposit the papers in a certain place and they are requested not to leave it unattended,” asserted Geiger, who objected to the paper “blowing all over the place” and being picked up as trash the next day. “That’s where I get sideways with them sometimes.”
However, according to the Lantern, they did not do anything they hadn’t done for the past six years. “Six years ago papers were stolen by the athletic department and trashed,” observed Catalino. “We took photos of them doing it, so they apologized and promised not to get in our way in the future.”
“That agreement has continued and is certainly acknowledged by the current athletic director, as well,” he added.
Yet, Geiger denied any agreement being made and no formal agreement exists in writing. Nevertheless, the Lantern insisted that they have the right to distribute anywhere on campus.
Schroeder, meanwhile, has been removed from his liaison duties between the athletic department and the Lantern and was verbally reprimanded, yet remains on in his same position. The athletic department issued public apologies in various local media outlets, including the Lantern, and compensated the paper for its $2,000 in damages.
Is that punishment enough? “He’s beginning his career. He made a mistake,” Geiger answered Campus Report. “I don’t think capital punishment or less is appropriate in this case. It’s a learning experience.”
Catalino responded for the paper. “We asked that he be removed from working with us and that’s what happened.”
“We were assured we would not have any problems again. Of course, I received that six years ago, as well,” he said.

A Growing Trend?
Three months ago, the Fall 1999 semester started out with massive newspaper and magazine thefts at Yale University and the University of Missouri. Like the administrations at Rutgers, CSUS, TCU, and Ohio State, school officials remain relatively silent while campus police lead fruitless and sometimes half-hearted investigations. Is campus freedom of the press in danger?
Opined the Lantern’s Ray Catalino, “I think there is a general questioning of First Amendment rights in the country as a whole when it comes to political correctness.”