Katelyn Wilburn, Campus Carrier opinions editor

On Oct. 14, Indiana University fired Jim Rodenbush, its former director of student media since 2018, because he refused to censor what their newspaper chose to put in their print issues. In his letter of termination, the school’s Professor and Dean David E. Tolchinsky said his “lack of leadership and ability to work in alignment with the University’s direction for the Student Media Plan is unacceptable.” Additionally, the very next day, the university prohibited the student journalists from printing their next edition and instructed them to only publish online moving forward. This decision is a clear case of censorship masked by administrative reconstruction and supposed financial burdens. Telling students they can only report what aligns with the institutions requirements is turning what is supposed to be honest reporting into nothing more than public relations.

Indiana attempted to frame its decision as their way of restructuring student media, modernizing and improving efficiency while lowering costs. Chancellor David A. Reingold said “the campus’ decision concerns the medium of distribution, not editorial content.” Yet this doesn’t seem to be the true intention of Indiana administration’s actions. 

Rodenbush was fired from Indiana because he wouldn’t cover only special campus events in their special print editions. Indiana Daily Student (IDS) only has seven print issues a semester that would contain guides for the special events featured, alongside their usual news coverage. If the university was trying to bring their paper into a more modern era, they would invest more into the online edition of IDS rather than just scrapping the print edition. This means it was a clear stunt to punish the publication for not censoring news content. 

This decision impacts the student body in many ways, including their attitudes towards truthful journalism and willingness to discuss important topics publicly. Journalism students are taught to embrace the truth and report it to their community. The students who make the paper have had the autonomy to choose their topics for ages, and taking that away sends a scary message: loyalty to institutions takes precedence over honesty. 

Not only does this decision impact the education of journalism majors, it also impacts all students. Publications are supposed to bring truths to light, whether they look good for the institutions around them or not. If hard topics aren’t addressed properly, the student body will find difficulty discussing them in day-to-day life. Media should report events objectively, helping its audience think critically and providing them with evidence to support their decisions. Stripping the publications of their reporting autonomy can teach the student body that it’s OK to avoid difficult topics, and that they can’t think critically of the individuals placed above them. 

Although this seems like one case where the university made some ridiculous decisions, Indiana University is not the only institution making these types of mistakes. Purdue University faced similar issues over the summer, as the college stopped aiding the distribution of newspapers. Furthermore, on May 30, the university asked the paper to remove “Purdue” from their name for commercial uses. The worst part of this is that Purdue refused to give a reason other than their policy of institutional neutrality. 

University of Texas at Dallas is facing similar censorship issues. In September 2024, they fired their editor-in-chief, Gregorio Olivares Gutierrez, due to accusations of “journalism malpractice.” This was because he reported on issues such as pro-Palestine protests on campus and the presence of sex offenders in their community. Olivares Gutierrez even explained how the university tried to remove an editorial about a student’s suicide from their kiosks around the school. 

This problem is larger than funding and policies. These colleges are going against publications’ rights to free speech, teaching students to value PR and institutional goals rather than the search for the truth behind each story. If higher education loses the voices of students, they will lose the soul of academic discourse.