Attempt to eviscerate Kansas student newspaper funding sets sinister example
University of Kansas student Zaynab Zlitni works at the University Daily Kansan newspaper on the campus in Lawrence. (Maya Smith/Kansas Reflector)
As a onetime reporter, columnist, copy editor and section editor at the University Daily Kansan, news that the University of Kansas Student Senate was proposing massive cuts to the news outlet's funding came as less than a shock.
It does, however, create an ominous precedent.
The KU student newspaper has a long history of clashes with student government, for the same reason that regular news media have a long history of clashes with government. Politicians don't like scrutiny. They do respond to public shaming, however, which is why the KU Student Senate's finance council quickly reversed course once reporters started calling attention to the move.
But I'm concerned because of the message it sends at a particularly perilous time for the news media. Sure, outlets have been buffeted by business shocks and readers migrating to new platforms. But they also now face national, state and local governments all too willing to violate the First Amendment in punishing or shaming them.
On the local level, look at the blatantly unconstitutional raid on the Marion County Record newspaper in the summer of 2023.
On the state level, look at House Speaker Dan Hawkins' decision to bar reporters from their traditional spot in the Statehouse after Hawkins lied about new media coverage.
On the national level, look at the Trump administration banning the Associated Press — the Associated Press! — from Oval Office events because it wouldn't rename the Gulf of Mexico.
So what does it say about the KU Student Senate that in this fraught moment, when simply reporting the news and sharing commentary faces more barriers than ever, that its fee review committee chose to slash the Daily Kansan's funding by 80%? What does it say about student government's commitment to supporting accurate and comprehensive coverage that might otherwise go unwritten?
Nothing good.
We're at a moment where politicians at all levels of government should search for ways to resist the rising authoritarian tide. Chief among them would be supporting journalists in their critical and challenging jobs. Whether you like their stories or not.
Sure, a student news outlet might seem like small beans in the scheme of things. And KU's William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications now offers multiple ways for budding reporters to earn their stripes, such as the hyperlocal Eudora Times and syndicated Statehouse reporting. Still, the Daily Kansan stands alone as an outlet reporting on campus life, one with more than 121 years of history and scads prestigious alumni.
I'm proud to have spent some of the most joyous times of my journalism career there. Many friends can say the same. I hope that others can have that experience for years to come — and enjoy the grudging backing of student government along the way.
Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
SF takes to the streets to protest ICE raids, demand Huerta's release
Amid escalating anti-immigration efforts, labor unions are warning San Franciscans that no one is safe from the Trump administration. Driving the news: David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union-United Service Workers West, was arrested in Los Angeles Friday while serving as a community observer at a worksite immigration raid. He has been charged with conspiracy to impede an officer for allegedly blocking a law enforcement vehicle. The latest: Over 100 people packed the street in front of the Hiram W. Johnson State Building at noon Monday, calling for Huerta's release and an end to raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The rally was among over 30 spearheaded by local unions across the country. What they're saying:"It's so painful to know that this can happen to any one of us," SEIU Local 87 president Olga Miranda, who organized the protest, told Axios. "All he was doing was standing there to make sure enforcement wasn't brutal." Between the lines: Immigrants have played critical roles in California unions over the last few decades, especially in the Bay Area, which has seen success organizing janitors, health care workers and fast food employees. "Everybody should be worried ... . They're offended by our mere existence," Miranda said, referencing her identity as a brown Chicana woman. She noted that many people are increasingly scared to show up to work because of potential raids. Yes, but: Miranda emphasized that while exercising First Amendment rights is important, she does not condone "anything being set on fire" in light of Sunday's protests, where multiple Waymos were set on fire.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump calling the National Guard to L.A. sets a dangerous precedent
President Donald Trump's unilateral actions deploying at least 2,000 National Guard members to downtown Los Angeles this weekend — contrary to the stated desire of California Gov. Gavin Newsom — has appropriately raised serious concerns regarding federalism, authoritarianism and politicization of our armed forces. While the use of the U.S. military on American streets isn't new, from disaster response following Hurricane Katrina to helping Los Angeles quell its 1992 riots, Trump's militarization of the already tense situation in Los Angeles is unprecedented. Moreover, the move threatens to exacerbate tensions instead of lessen them. Trump's order is unlike other domestic uses of the military because the American norm revolves around states. States are primarily responsible for the safety of their city streets, with governors requesting help from the federal government only when needed. During one of the worst U.S. civil disturbances outside the Civil War, for example, then-California Gov. Pete Wilson asked President H.W. Bush for federal military assistance during the 1992 L.A. riots. Presidents have only rarely bypassed governors and, without their consent, commanded federal military assets (both active duty military and federalized National Guard units) to deal with domestic unrest, largely during the Civil Rights Movement (the last time governors were cut out of the picture was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson federalized members of the National Guard to protect civil rights protesters marching from Selma to Montgomery). In stark contrast, instead of protecting protestors, Trump federalized the National Guard this past weekend without Newsom's support, which risks squashing First Amendment-protected protests against his administration's draconian immigration dragnet, thereby throwing gasoline on an already volatile situation. Trump claimed this was necessary to protect federal agents and property from a 'rebellion' in Los Angeles, even though Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass were effectively using the Los Angeles Police Department, state Highway Patrol and the L.A. County Sheriff's Department at the time to deal with sporadic violence associated with what began as largely peaceful protests. Critically, from the start of these protests Newsom had the authority to deploy his own California National Guard units to assist local L.A. law enforcement personnel if needed; like all governors, he could specifically order members of his National Guard to engage in policing, including arrests, searches and seizures. This powerful domestic law enforcement authority of National Guard units working for their governor is critically important and represents a huge distinction between guard and active duty units. Unlike in the active duty military, domestic law enforcement is a traditional role for states' National Guard units. As citizen soldiers tracing their roots to state militias at the time of the Revolutionary War, members of the National Guard working for their governor are not seen as the same threat to democracy that federal troops have been. The National Guard's role in the U.S. democratic schema is unique; guard units across the country work first and foremost for their governors in both domestic law enforcement and disaster response capacities. The president can also call them up to federal service, under the Pentagon's command and control, to fight foreign wars, to assist in repelling invasion or rebellion, and to help execute federal law. Traditionally, when used domestically, National Guard units typically continue to fall under the command and control of their governor (or are federalized only at the request of the affected governor), except in the very rare cases not seen since the 1960s, like during the desegregation of the high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. This distinction between the National Guard, who work primarily for their state governors, and the active duty military and reserves is a critical one and reveals a historic mistrust of federal troops (as opposed to the National Guard) being used on American streets. Alexander Hamilton expressed one of our Founding Father's greatest fears — that the U.S. military, while necessary for a strong union, could be used by a tyrannical president against 'we the people,' thereby replacing democratic power with authoritarian rule. This fear focused on the active duty military, not the militias (today's guard) embedded day in and day out in their towns and villages. This deep American aversion to federal troops being deployed on our city streets is legally manifested in the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits active-duty military — and National Guard units when working for the president, therefore indistinguishable from active duty troops — from law enforcement (policing) duties, unless expressly authorized by other law. Traditionally, that exception has been the use of another venerable federal law — the Insurrection Act. Notably, while Trump has lawfully federalized National Guard troops under a separate statute that allows him to do so in case of invasion or rebellion or to execute federal laws — one that seemingly vests in him the discretion to decide when such rebellion is present or law execution is needed — he has not concomitantly invoked the Insurrection Act. Meaning the California National Guard troops that the governor could have deployed to engage in policing in Los Angeles cannot now legally engage in such activities, because they work for the president and are barred from law enforcement until the Insurrection Act is invoked. Given the lack of Insurrection Act invocation, it's no wonder the president's order stresses that the National Guard will engage in protective activities only, with no mention of law enforcement. Yet protective functions could easily transform into the need to engage in law enforcement. By inflaming tensions by sending in federal troops (the guard units deployed to L.A. are indistinguishable from active duty troops now that they are federalized, though far better trained in law enforcement than active duty units), Trump may have created the need to invoke the Insurrection Act, thus allowing him to order not only the National Guard, but also active duty troops to police the streets of Los Angeles. Trump's order to federalize the California National Guard seems lawful under the broad discretion of the statute used (though it requires that orders to federalize flow through the governor, which the Trump administration has largely ignored). Yet Trump's actions — including a possible Insurrection Act invocation — run contrary to the historical use of these powers. They instead represent not only a dangerous escalation for those on the ground, but a dangerous precedent in the abuse of the armed forces for political ends, and a dangerous move for those on the streets of Los Angeles. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Labor chief charged after arrest at ICE raid
California union leader David Huerta has been charged in federal court with conspiracy to impede an officer after he was arrested on Friday while protesting federal immigration enforcement efforts. Huerta, the president of the California branch of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), is detained and slated to appear for a bond hearing Monday afternoon. A Homeland Security agent alleged in a court affidavit dated Sunday that officers were trying to execute a search warrant at a Los Angeles establishment suspected of hiring people who had entered the U.S. without authorization when Huerta took several steps to 'disrupt the operation.' Huerta sat and paced in front of a gate, the federal agent wrote in the affidavit, and refused to move aside. At one point, Huerta 'refused to move away from the path' when a law enforcement van approached with its sirens blazing and tried to enter through the gate, according to the Homeland Security agent. Huerta, according to the federal agent, 'instead stood in front of the vehicle with his hands on his hips.' The agent said he then saw a law enforcement officer approach an 'uncooperative' Huerta and 'put his hands' on Huerta 'in an attempt to move him out of the path of the vehicle.' Huerta pushed the officer back, according to the agent, and 'in response,' the officer pushed Huerta to the ground, handcuffed him and arrested him. The incident has provoked outrage from Democrats. California Democratic Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla joined Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Monday in a letter to several Trump administration officials 'demanding answers' about Huerta, who they say 'was injured, arrested and detained by federal officials while exercising his lawful right to observe the conduct of immigration enforcement personnel.' 'It is deeply troubling that a U.S. citizen, union leader, and upstanding member of the Los Angeles community continues to be detained by the federal government for exercising his rights to observe immigration enforcement,' the lawmakers wrote in a letter. 'As U.S. Senators, we are privileged and proud to represent Americans like Mr. Huerta, who are pillars of their community and stand up for the fundamental rights of all residents of our great state,' they wrote, noting they have a 'constitutional duty to conduct oversight' of federal agencies and are requiring a response to a list of questions about the incident. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) also on Sunday attempted to speak to Huerta at the federal detention facility where he was being held, but she was blocked from entering, CNN reported. SEIU members, meanwhile, rallied in several cities Monday in Huerta's defense. The California branch of the union on Friday said that Huerta was arrested and injured 'while exercising his First Amendment right to observe and document law enforcement activity.' 'We are proud of President Huerta's righteous participation as a community observer, in keeping with his long history of advocating for immigrant workers and with the highest values of our movement: standing up to injustice, regardless of personal risk or the power of those perpetrating it,' the group's Executive Director Tia Orr said in a statement. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
