THE CAVALIER DAILY: ALL THE NEWS THAT FITS, WE PRINT

There is an old saying that “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Well, there have been a number of trees falling in the UVA forest and UVA’s student newspaper of record has intentionally had its hands over its ears. 

First, we broke a story in March regarding alleged interference by the members of the General Assembly and others in the selection of the Rector of the Board of Visitors. Our story was based on information we received from numerous credible sources. And since publishing the story we have learned that this story is well known by many members of the University community on Grounds as well as in Richmond. And while this story is clearly one of material importance, The Cavalier Daily has refused to acknowledge its existence or to our knowledge has even attempted to corroborate its veracity. We guess the CD’s idea of investigative journalism only exists when it possibly supports its own agenda.

It is worth noting the CD had no problem publishing unsubstantiated and conclusory allegations attacking the BOV and the Presidential Search Committee that was without any reasonable factual analysis. (In fact, when we submitted a response to its search committee op-ed, the CD agreed to publish our response subject to some clarifications – and then while we were in the midst of providing the documentation, editing the document in real-time, they abruptly and without explanation informed us it would not be published)  

Most recently we published an analysis of 36 pages of revealing texts between the head of the Faculty Senate (now also the new faculty representative on the BOV) and the then-head of the Student Council obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). By any reasonable standard, the contents of these texts are newsworthy to the University community.

The Cavalier Daily's response to receiving a full copy of these texts is apparently an abject refusal to recognize their existence. In doing so the CD has taken the conclusory position that the texts do not necessarily exhibit inappropriate behavior or show violations of specific rules of conduct. However, such response clearly conflates two separate issues: whether the texts are newsworthy or whether the texts between Jeri Seidman and Clay Dickerson necessarily prove a conduct violation or some “objective” determination of inappropriate behavior. These are not the same determinative issues for a journalist.

Newsworthiness does not require a finding of wrongdoing (although we believe that such finding is self-evident here) . Rather, it should require that the story be verifiable, significant, and of legitimate interest to the University community. These texts — 36 pages of them — show sustained actions by the head of the Faculty Senate to influence the thinking and behavior of the head of the Student Council.  Such manipulative behavior by a person in a clearly higher position of authority included agenda-setting, message development, anonymous social media seeding, shared graphics, and synchronized timing. These are facts. They are documented. The power differential is not merely incidental in context. It is the context. By any standard definition of news, that qualifies.

Should anyone have any doubts about the newsworthiness of these texts, we will herewith highlight two of the text exchanges that should convince any objective reader of the inappropriate nature of this abuse of position by the head of the Faculty Senate. The first is when Seidman requested Dickerson to “seed” on YikYak a call-to-action so it would anonymously and falsely appear to be a statement made by a student.

This was an improper request by any reasonable standard, particularly at a school with an honor system. And that the request was apparently fulfilled makes the action that much more material. Contrast Seidman's emphasis on anonymity here when time and again she attacked the BOV and the Presidential Search Committee for their lack of transparency.

Second, Seidman’s manipulation had reached such an elevated level that the President of Student Council responded to a request made by Seidman by stating– “in response to your e-mail i can say whatever you need me to. Let me know whatever I need to do and I can.” This statement demonstrates that the head of student government had clearly ceded his independent judgment to the head of the Faculty Senate. If the CD believes that is not newsworthy, then the Editorial Board should just close up shop.

These texts demonstrate that the current faculty BOV representative had acted in a secretive, non-transparent fashion to manipulate the actions of a student leader to support her agenda against the sitting BOV and the Presidential Search Committee. Such behavior reveals the utter hypocrisy of her past championing the values of honor, integrity, and transparency in connection with her attacks on the BOV and Search Committee – and is clearly a matter of public concern for the University community. The CD is entitled to its editorial judgment. But the editors’ own subjective judgment of whether this behavior is right or wrong is not the same as "this isn't news." The record is documented, the communications and role disparities are significant, and the University community is entitled to have this issue presented to them by the UVA newspaper of record and judge for themselves.