I usually think it is improper form to criticize our competitors at the Sun. However, their inaction on one of the largest stories to embroil our alma mater in years is too large a failure for me to remain silent.
On Sunday, the Sun published a blistering editorial on the ongoing drama surrounding Cornell history professor Russell Rickford.
For the unaware, Rickford gave an impromptu speech at a pro-Palestine rally on the Ithaca Commons last Sunday. In this speech, Rickford described the Hamas attacks in Israel as “exhilarating” and “energizing.” His comments attracted national attention and condemnation, eventually prompting a personal denunciation from Cornell president Martha Pollack and high ranking members of the Board of Trustees.
Elements of campus circled the wagons around Rickford, launching protests and taking to social media to defend the professor for comments they argued were taken out of context. On Thursday, a mobile billboard demanding Rickford’s termination began circulating on campus. The next day, a crowd of demonstrators surrounded the truck and forced it off campus.
On all of this, the Sun’s presses went silent. They published an initial article on Rickford’s comments, his statement apologizing for them, then an editorial yesterday complaining about receiving threats for their reporting. My question to the Sun is: what reporting?
The eyes of the nation – and even the world – fell on Cornell this last week. Amidst it all, Cornell’s paper of record was silent.
Maybe the Sun thought it was protecting students, Rickford, or the university at large by remaining silent. Maybe the Sun thought that the story would just go away if they didn’t report on it. Perhaps the Sun thinks that it is their job to act as arbiter of what is and what is not newsworthy in this little slice of Ithaca, New York.
The role of a student newspaper
Several months ago, I wrote a letter to new and returning students arguing for the importance of student journalism. I still believe in the ability of student journalists to hold powerful people on campus accountable, but the inaction of such a “professional” publication as the Sun shakes my faith.
With far fewer staff and resources, the Review covered the events of last week in immense detail. The Sun did not go entirely quiet, for the record. They reported the rallies and vigils that enveloped campus, documented a Cornell football win, and published a few unrelated op-eds. It was only on Rickford that they fell quiet.
Only on Rickford, the touchstone of campus discourse and an immensely personal issue to many students, staff, faculty, and alumni. Truth be told, I have no appetite for reporting on individuals. I think it is a disreputable part of journalism that takes previously unknown, private people and places a spotlight on them for all but the worst of infractions.
However, as a journalist, I don’t get to decide what to report on. I have a duty – a duty the Sun shares – to impartially record what happens on this campus. Ignoring such an enormous story is journalistic malpractice. It is a miscarriage of the trust the Sun’s readers place in them. There is a virtual monopoly of news on this campus. If the Sun doesn’t talk about something, it’s unlikely people hear and remember.
Now, after failing at their one and only job, the people in charge of the Sun think it’s their job to lecture (variously) their readers, “fellow Cornellians,” the trustees, and Martha herself about how to approach this topic. Well, dear editors of the Daily Sun, perhaps you should do your job before telling other people how to do theirs.
In the course of writing this op-ed, the Sun finally published a summation of some of last week’s controversies. While I applaud them for finally covering this story, the eyes of the nation have already moved on. The Sun‘s coverage is too little, too late.
