Near the end of last semester, [The Hoya’s now-infamous April Fools’ Day issue prompted outrage and considerable discussion](https://www.thehoya.com/news/students-protest-april-fools-issue/). We saw a sit-in demonstration, Facebook groups protesting The Hoya ([“Discrimination is not a laughing matter,”](https://www.facebook.com/search/?q=discrimination+is+not+a+laughing+matter&init=quick#/group.php?gid=79527046880&ref=search&sid=537591595.1002743024..1) one said), the disposal of copies of the issue in question, a tense town-hall meeting and frenzied discussion on the comments section of The Hoya’s Web site. All of this occurred at a time when The Hoya was on the brink of attaining independence from the university.

It didn’t take long for The Hoya’s leadership to recognize the need for change – not just to save face, but also to ensure that The Hoya would better represent and connect with the community it serves. The editors passed a series of six initiatives that aimed to make The Hoya more connected with the community it intends to represent and serve. Among them were the completion of a third-party review, the creation of new staff development positions (one dedicated to institutional diversity), regular focus groups and reader surveys, the appropriation of April Fools’ issue revenue for community building events and the acquisition of an ombudsman.

As you can read in this issue ([“Media Board Halts Hoya Independence,” The Hoya, A1, Aug. 28, 2009](https://www.thehoya.com/news/media-board-halts-hoya-independence/)), however, the Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity and Affirmative Action filed a complaint against The Hoya to the Georgetown Media Board, a group of students, faculty and staff serving as an advisory and funding structure for all Georgetown University media organizations. Before the Media Board issued its sanctions, it was supplied with the initiatives passed by The Hoya’s editors.

One of the central problems with the Media Board’s sanctions was that, though they relied on The Hoya’s articulated plan for reform for three of the first four sanctions (which addressed the staff development and ombudsman positions, the issue revenue and the third-party review), the board cited The Hoya’s failure “to put specific, actionable steps in place to demonstrably change the culture of their organization and fulfill the high expectations that accompany the claim as `the Georgetown University newspaper of record,'” in placing The Hoya on probation and delaying independence. The Media Board simultaneously accepted The Hoya’s plans for reform and halted The Hoya’s bid for independence due to a lack of plans for reform.

That the Media Board’s sanctions may have been faulty logically is limited in importance – The Hoya has accepted the postponement of independence negotiations and is currently making a concerted effort to meet the requirements of all of the sanctions. The logic of the sanctions is troubling only in a more abstract sense: What does it mean for The Hoya’s future if the Media Board showed this kind of disregard for the organization’s efforts to reform itself? What does it mean for the future of all Georgetown media organizations if a university structure is so willing to place a campus newspaper – one with the stated mission of reporting on such university structures – on probation? It will take another two semesters at least to get answers, but the questions are somewhat unsettling for now.

In a June 1 memo Center for Student Programs Director Erika Cohen-Derr sent to the appeals board that ultimately upheld the Media Board’s sanctions, Cohen-Derr sought to clarify questions from the appeals board specifically pertaining to the sanction that delayed independence. As part of her clarification, she quoted an anonymous member of the Media Board, who said, “. To believe that the newspaper’s level of integrity, responsibility, and journalistic accountability depends either way on its independence from the University is illogical and false. An institution which commends itself as `the university’s paper of record’ should prove itself worthy of the independence it seeks, and a limited probation seems rather a small measure to endure for the price of integrity.”

This, too, is troubling – for two reasons. It’s troubling because it suggests that all of The Hoya’s arguments for independence based on journalistic integrity, freedom and responsibility – arguments that, this spring, the university was prepared to accept – are meaningless. It’s more troubling because it says that probation results from the need for “integrity,” when in fact probation may come at the price of it.

*To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact [opinionthehoya.com](opinionthehoya.com). Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.*”