Letter from the Editor

Dear Reader,

A few weeks ago, President Trump suspended journalist access to the White House for CNN, MS NOW and Politico. On social media, Trump posted that these news sources “shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES.” In response, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC — the five networks that provided television coverage of the president — collectively suspended their television broadcasting of President Trump. The New York Times, The Washington Post and other outlets also followed suit in pausing the publication and distribution of photographs taken from the White House pool coverage. 

When President Trump held a South Lawn ribbon-cutting ceremony on September 21, no traditional news media covering the president were present to provide live feed; he was inaudible in his remarks that were livestreamed by the White House on Youtube. The three suspended outlets also sued the president and his administration.

Journalism is often called the fourth (and unofficial) branch of the government for this reason. Its role, similar to the other three branches, provides checks and balances on the federal government, exposing corruption and questioning authorities when the formal checks fall apart. In a way, it is also the most influential branch of the government since it directly communicates with the public. The other branches are products of bureaucracy with power granted by what are more or less written contracts. Yes, we do attribute an inherent sanctity to the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence also tells us that it is the people’s rights to abolish the government when abuse occurs. And the people’s judgement of the government, to an unignorable extent, is shaped by the press.

In fact, journalism and the press occupy such significance in every institution, including Deerfield. Here, we’re part of a unique institution in that information is conveyed through a central administration; our community is small enough that one person at a podium can broadcast news and ideas to everyone. But that does not mean journalism lacks a place in the Deerfield community. The Scroll, for one, offers an alternative perspective to the official administration through our mission to serve as a platform for student voices. We bring in a different voice that is so crucial in understanding what Deerfield is really about. 

That raises the question: is the Scroll qualified to take such a role? It is perhaps no secret to you that the Scroll is under censorship. Our journalism is merely neutral, not independent. We receive funding that is controlled by the Academy’s administration to cover costs in printing and other expenditures. I hear you: all impactful student newspapers seem to manage their own finances to support their editorial independence. 

Recently, The Cornell Daily Sun rose to fame because of their unwavering commitment to pursuing a series of fraternity rape allegations, which the Cornell administration had downplayed for years. Their risky and incredibly courageous act of publishing the names of the seven accused was only possible through their financial and editorial independence. Sophia Dasser, the Sun’s editor-in-chief, stated in her letter that it is the Sun’s duty to act as a watchdog for the school. Could the Scroll ever rise to such a responsibility if a similar case occurs on campus (I pray it never will)? 

I have thought long and hard about this question since first reading this story. If we remain as bystanders in face of such tragedy (if it were to ever occur on our campus), then what good is our journalism? We take our work seriously in the Scroll room —we do not simply publish grammatically accurate English essays. Our writers and editors undergo extensive training so that their articles represent well-reported journalism. Therefore, I would not relegate our work to anything beneath journalism. Yet due to complicated circumstances, we are also unable to achieve the same independence like the Sun has. 

But I believe that the least we could do is to take baby steps toward this ambition. For now, transparency is one such step. I want to be open about our censorship process. We currently function under a system where we share our articles with the Academic Affairs Office a few days prior to publication. This year, the Academic Affairs Office specifically flags any articles that contain factual inaccuracy or deviate from the section guidelines, in contrast to the more ambiguous process from past years. The current review process could result in further editing or complete removal of the article from publication, in rare cases. In addition, the Academic Affairs Office has full access to the Google Drive and Documents which we draft our articles in. As for section guidelines, we used to work closely with the school administration to establish guidelines on instances which specific articles triggered strong administrative backlash. However, we are able to draft our own guidelines with no administrative oversight this year. 

This is the best we can do for now. We in the Scroll room are incredibly proud of our journalism, and we will do the best we can to uphold its high standards. There are limits that our publication functions under, but we will work to be as transparent as we can under the Scroll CI Board. So please read on and send a letter to yli27@deerfield.edu if you have any thoughts. 

Yours in truth,

Andrew Li