Following complaints over a lack of student representation, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Joseph W. Watson has added representatives from each of the six colleges to a committee designed to discuss policies for campus closed-circuit television stations. The original plan for the committee, drafted by Watson, allowed for only one student representative.
“It was my assumption that there would have been collaboration between students anyway, but I’m quite open to having more students on the committee,” Watson said. “There’s no reason for a lack of a student voice.”
Dissatisfaction with the board’s proposal was summarized in a letter to Watson and committee chair Nicholas S. Aguilar, who also serves as director of student policies and judicial affairs. The letter was written by A.S. President Jenn Pae, SRTV station manager Chelsea Welch and Revelle College sophomore Scott Steahl.
“In order for the committee to accurately distinguish the nature of the television stations and work more efficiently, it would be vital to have sufficient collegiate student representation,” the letter stated.
Initially, the committee consisted of five administrators and Welch, a Revelle senior, was the sole student member.
The board was created in response to conflicts of policy among campus-run media in the 2003-04 school year, including the controversial airing of the beheading of American Nicholas Berg in Iraq by Earl Warren College television.
“We had last year a number of issues about content and whose responsibility it is,” Watson said. “[This committee] is a way of clarifying that problem.”
As outlined by a letter from Watson to A.S. Vice President Internal Cat Yapyuco, objectives for the committee include deliberation and agreement on “how and to what degree the [station’s] sponsoring entity has responsibility” and “the purpose and nature of the station’s programming and the guidelines governing content.”
The committee is in no way a governing unit of student-run media, and holds only the power to review and discuss policy, Watson said.
However, student representatives still expressed fears over the undue control of content by the board.
“After these first few meetings, it’s still hazy about whether the committee is simply there to discuss and recommend or to serve as an actual oversight,” Welch said.
Progress in the committee’s deliberations has been slow, with much time spent on defining the nature of each station.
Also under scrutiny is the charge of the committee, specifically the definition of the term “sponsoring entity” in Watson’s written charter. Committee members have expressed disagreement over whether the term implies an authoritative unit or simply an entity that provides funding.
In addition to failing to agree on the interpretation of the committee’s charter, student members expressed concerns over potential limitations of content.
“Each station is unique in its own way. We have six colleges, six stations and SRTV — all of them different,” said John Muir College senior Kimberly Robbins, a member of Muir TV and the Muir representative on the committee. “Who are we to decide what can and cannot be shown?”
The committee expects to produce a report of its recommendations for Watson by Feb. 2, a deadline the vice chancellor extended from the original date of Nov. 10. Aguilar attributed the delay to the inclusion of more student representatives and holiday constraints.
“By the time we were able to get more student representatives, it was pretty close to the November deadline, and the time has been extended in recognition of the fact that we’re pretty close to finals and students will be leaving in December — we need this in order to get the most student involvement,” Aguilar said.
