Statement on 'Democracy Now!'

by Loren E. Swartzendruber
Sept. 7, 2004

Numerous inquiries have been made concerning the decision to decrease the airing of Democracy Now! on WEMC from five times a week to one time per week. It is understandable that people have widely divergent points of view on the program itself and on the decision that was made. At the risk of not speaking to all of the concerns, providing too much data, and/or leaving additional questions unanswered I would like to provide some information in response to questions I've heard.

I am certain we will have opportunities to continue debating what are very important issues. In spite of the strong feelings that some of us may have, I want us resist oversimplifying what are complex considerations that pertain in many decisions that confront us as an institution.

It has been said that the decision was based on a communication from a donor who indicated he would no longer support EMU unless Democracy Now! is no longer aired on WEMC. It is true that such a message was sent to the university in the Summer of 2003. At that time attempts were made to enter into conversation; at no point was the donor promised that the program would be taken off the air. According to written statements, the donor's issue with the program was not primarily its "politics" or particular points of view, but rather his feeling that the program, or more specifically its approach and tone, does not fit the mission of EMU (more on the mission question later).

Beryl Brubaker, serving as interim president, made several unsuccessful attempts to engage this particular donor in conversation. During her speech to the campus community during the fall 2003 Faculty/Staff Conference, Beryl specifically noted that concerns (not just from this one donor) had been expressed about Democracy Now! and invited anyone to express their thoughts, pro or con. No one communicated any responses.

The issue had not been resolved when I arrived at EMU on January 1. I had several contacts with the particular donor and no promises were ever made. In fact, I directly communicated that the fact that he had made a threat to withhold funding would make it nearly impossible to widely debate the merits of the program itself (and the crucial question of whether it fits EMU's mission) simply because the focus would be on the propriety of tying donations to university decisions. My concerns about whether we could productively debate the program itself, without being sidetracked by the donor action, have come true. Other listeners shared similar concerns about the program during the following months. Some of these comments were received orally, some by me directly, and some by other members of the EMU staff. Comments of support for the program were received during the same period of time. Based on the feedback I and others have received, there is no question that members of the community are sharply divided about the program.

The President's Cabinet reviewed the situation in several discussions and supported my suggestion that the WEMC board of reference should be fully informed of the various points of view and that any decision should be made by the WEMC station manager in consultation with the board of reference. It is normal practice in radio management that a station manager has considerable autonomy in making programming decisions. In this case, the manager knew that strong feelings existed (on both sides) and that consultation with the board of reference would be appropriate. I presented information to the board of reference on April 29, including the statement made by the donor referenced above. I did not make any recommendation on a response nor did I suggest any particular course of action. I did attempt to identify several possible courses of action and to offer thoughts about possible consequences of each course.

I made clear that it is not our practice to make such decisions based on donor demands and that it would be unethical to do so. The fact is that had we listened only to this donor we would have dropped the program a year ago. Further, had I decided to take the matter into my own hands, I could have attempted to ask that the program be deleted without revealing any particular reasons. In addition, there is no guarantee that the ultimate decision, when implemented, will satisfy the donor's wishes. No promises have been made in response to the decision.

In over 20 years of administration and fundraising I have never, nor will I ever, commit an institution to a particular position or action based on donor demands. It would be unethical and immoral to do so. In reality, very few donors ever make such demands, but it is also true that donors on all sides of an issue (including this one) do make such statements. Since this decision was announced additional people have indicated they will no longer support WEMC and/or EMU, and some listeners have urged others to boycott the station. While I completely disagree with this tactic, it is the right of a donor to withdraw funding if he/she does not agree with a particular stance. I have therefore argued that it is not unethical for a donor to make such threats--I do, however, strongly oppose such behavior no matter what the issue is that is being debated. It should also be noted that money is not the only power that people possess!

It was critical to me that the President's Cabinet and the board of reference would know all of the facts before making any decision on Democracy Now!. I knew, from other sources, that at least a few people knew some of the facts; it would not have been appropriate for the board of reference to be asked for counsel, only to learn later that some facts were withheld from some of the members. At the same time, an administrator sometimes has an obligation not to reveal contents of all communications received from every source; in some cases confidentiality is required. I do not yet know all the details, but somehow the minutes of the April 29 meeting (marked "executive session") were distributed inappropriately. I only learned this last Friday. From what I do know, I do not believe that any member of the board of reference distributed the minutes. In summary, I did not make any recommendation nor ask for any particular action, but neither did I withhold information from those who had the authority to make decisions.

The board of reference discussed the full range of issues and possible responses. Some members indicated they had come to the meeting independently feeling that Democracy Now! should not be broadcast five times a week, not knowing anything about any donor comments. After discussion, a possible action was recommended that was supported by the board of reference. The decision was not unanimous, but a majority of members were ready to move ahead, based on all the factors discussed. In essence, the feeling is that while the program does meet some EMU mission objectives (promoting justice and a global view), it does not meet some other mission objectives. Over time it has become a divisive and polarizing program (some disagree strongly with this characterization or whether this should even be a concern). The station manager has said that he does not want the station to be defined primarily by listener response to one program that represents a very small percentage of total programming.

The board of reference was, and is, supportive of finding alternative programs that would continue to promote some of what everyone agreed are positive attributes of Democracy Now! For that reason and others, and to allow time to find alternative programs, the decision was made in April to delay implementation of the change for several months. In a recent meeting of the board of reference, a number of new ideas were reviewed for the future.

I'm aware that many individuals have wondered "what the president" thinks about Democracy Now!, the decision that was made, and how it fits the EMU mission. While I did not make the decision, I have no hesitation to offer my opinion alongside those of many others. (I know that some would wish I would exert authority and reverse this particular decision. That is very ironic to me; presidents are usually challenged for exerting too much authority--apparently it all depends on whether the authority is exerted for or against a particular point of view!)

I believe that the program offers a valuable point of view that should be heard. I happen to agree with the vast majority of what I have heard, but I have not been a regular listener. I just don't listen to radio, other than music, very much when I'm in my office. It is rare for me to have the freedom or opportunity to listen to a radio program at 5:00 p.m. with my full attention. There are many days when I'm not in my office during that time of day. My personal concerns about the program would not be about the political perspective most often articulated. It has been suggested that "EMU is opposed to this program because it is too liberal politically or not conservative enough." That is not true.

I have listened enough to know there is merit in the concerns about divisiveness, polarization, tone, and technical quality. For exactly the same reasons (except for quality), I would strongly oppose the airing of a polar opposite program like the Rush Limbaugh show. I grant that there is a significant difference; Limbaugh already has plenty of outlets. I personally believe several questions have to be asked. Does anyone listen to the program who is not already convinced of a particular point of view? Are any minds changed as a result of listening to the program? Is the program "preaching to the choir?" Can EMU be more faithful to our overall mission by providing alternative ways of promoting civil discourse in a culture that is increasingly polarized and fragmented? I would like us to be very intentional about offering an alternative point of view in ways that are more likely to actually change opinions and promote healthy dialogue.

Depending on the answers to those questions, one has to ask, what is the good that is being served if many choose not to listen or it simply angers them to hear it? I would personally be more concerned about the decision if it were not for the fact that I and others can listen to Democracy Now! any time of the day on the internet. Not everyone has broadband access, but neither can everyone listen to a radio program at a particular time of the day.

Loren Swartzendruber, president
Eastern Mennonite University
Sept. 7, 2004