The subject line of Student-Run Television task force member Harry Khanna’s e-mail to the A.S. Council seemed to say it all: “Just when we thought we were done with SRTV.”
As of now, the council has taken a step toward being done with the station drama, which included pornographic broadcasts by John Muir College alumnus Steve York, a provision banning “graphic depictions of sexual activity involving nudity” and its eventual rejection by a student vote, and the administration’s refusal to turn the station on until its charter was revised.
At its Feb. 15 meeting, the council voted to adopt a new charter, though the document is vastly different from the requirements set for it by administrators.
“It was the task force’s job to make a charter that met students’ needs and desires,” said Khanna, who also serves as the A.S. vice president of academic affairs. “It’s not the task force’s job to negotiate with administrators and meet their needs.”
In the Feb. 7 e-mail, Khanna sought advice from the council after talks with administrators stalled.
The negotiations at the beginning of the month seemed to go smoothly, Khanna said, when acting Assistant Vice Chancellor of Student Life Gary R. Ratcliff remained mum on multiple aspects of the proposed revisions. Before any decisions could be made regarding contentious issues in the charter — such as the exclusion of a ban on sexual nudity and a program review board — Ratcliff told the task force during negotiations that he would have to consult with his superiors.
Task force members, including SRTV co-Manager Andrew Tess and Thurgood Marshall College Student Council Chair Denis Shmidt, all expressed optimism. Khanna even predicted the return of the station within weeks.
On Feb. 6, Ratcliff sent an e-mail to Khanna expressing doubt over the task force’s version of the charter.
“The university continues to stand by the condition that television station’s broadcasting on the Triton Cable Network are prohibited from airing graphic depictions of sexual activity,” Ratcliff stated.
In addition, Ratcliff stated that he wanted the inclusion of a program review board that would “approve new program proposals in advance to ensure that programs comply with the station’s rules and regulations.”
“It is better to verify compliance [with the charter] before a program airs than after its airs,” Ratcliff stated in the e-mail.
The task force had proposed the creation of a panel that would review and sanction broadcast producers after an airing if the show violated the charter.
Members argued that a program review panel would serve no purpose on top of a post-review panel.
Under the system backed by Ratcliff, show producers would fill out a form prior to airings indicating whether or not the proposed show would violate the charter.
“A person could answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to violations to the charter,” Khanna said. “Any violations would end up at the postreview panel to decide sanctions anyway.”
Tess had stronger words for the panel, calling Ratcliff’s wishes “prior review,” which Tess contends is illegal in public institutions.
“Prior review doesn’t make any sense on this campus, in any context,” Tess said.
During negotiations, Ratcliff did not give the task force a definite stance on the issue of review panels or the ban on nudity, which makes the negotiations, in hindsight, frustrating and seemingly pointless, Khanna said.
“I think we would like to speak to who’s really in charge and making decisions,” Khanna said. “If we want to get something done to the liking of both students and administrators, we want to talk to the top.”
The top, it would appear, would be at Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Joseph W. Watson.
“I believe that we should make clear to the A.S. and the campus that the administration will not permit the transmission of pornography over its broadcast channels, and that we should do so earlier rather than later,” Watson stated to Ratcliff on Nov. 15 in an e-mail obtained by the Guardian through the California Public Records Act. “We should couple the statement with one that indicates that the A.S. … has open to it the ability to broadcast any material it wishes from and over broadcast and transmission facilities not associated with UCSD.”
Chancellor Marye Anne Fox said that she would rather stay out of the university’s dealings with the station until she deems it necessary to intervene.
Fox also said that she gets periodic reports about the progress of the SRTV negotiations, but she indicated that any time estimate about the station’s return would be “pre-empting.”
“We want to restore SRTV under conditions appropriate for the university, and we hope we can reach a resolution quickly,” Fox said. “But I would not insert myself unless there is an impasse in the negotiations.”
The impasse could be near, with the council deciding at its latest meeting this week to approve the charter without Ratcliff’s support in a 17-1-0 vote. The move could send a symbolic message to the university, according to Khanna.
“Maybe it could put pressure on the university to accept what students want,” he said.
— Additional reporting by
Matthew McArdle
Associate News Editor
Readers can contact Charles Nguyen at [email protected].
