The Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ) is urging the AMS to withdraw proposals that threaten press freedom at Queen’s University, describing the measures as “Orwellian.”
The AMS will host its first Special Assembly of the academic year at Stirling Hall on Nov. 18 at 6:40 p.m. The Special Assembly will give all AMS who have paid their hip fee the opportunity to vote on two motions, if ed will allow the AMS to interfere with The Journal’s executive and editorial operations.
The CAJ, an independent, not-for-profit organization that provides advocacy and professional development for journalists across Canada, has called on the AMS to withdraw its proposed changes, arguing that the changes threaten the editorial independence of The Journal and potentially lead to censorship of the university’s student-run newspaper.
“Allowing government leaders, of any ilk, to decide what news stories are to be published by any media organization is abhorrent and a full-frontal assault on the democratic role of a free press,” CAJ President Brent Jolly said in a press release. Jolly is also the managing director of the National NewsMedia Council of Canada (NNC), the self-regulatory body for news media in Canada.
The statement further emphasized the “substantive ability structures” that ensure The Queen’s Journal operates responsibly, including oversight from its editorial advisory board and board of directors. Additionally, the CAJ cites The Journal’s hip with National NewsMedia Council, an independent organization that reviews editorial complaints from the public.
Initially, the first motion would require The Queen’s Journal’s Editor(s) in Chief to submit written reports to the AMS Secretariat within 72 hours of receiving notice. The AMS says this report, to be presented to Assembly, would address issues relating to its mandate of providing AMS “a safe space to learn and grow on both personal and professional levels.”
The originally proposed motions would fall under section 14.1.4 of the AMS Constitution, explaining an invasion of privacy or violation of copyright or proprietary on behalf of The Journal could include, “but is not limited to the usage of their names and other personally identifying information.”
While the first item of motion one requiring the Editor(s) in Chief to submit written reports is still on the table, the second item stating, “The Society recognizes the rights of for privacy, which includes but is not limited to the usage of their names and other personally identifying information” in relation to The Journal’s coverage has been struck.
“The fact that not being able to use the names of elected officials was even mentioned shows how little thought went behind the creation of these motions. If you represent 20,000 undergraduate students, you should expect to have your name published. It’s what you signed up for,” Editor in Chief Allie Moustakis said in an interview.
The second motion, which has since been amended in Monday’s updated agenda, originally stated “That AMS Assembly exercise its jurisdiction under Section 2.1.4, 2.1.6 and 5.2.1 of the AMS Constitution and require that the Queen’s Journal Policy be presented to the AMS Assembly for approval by April 30th, 2025 AND approve the mandate of, and establish the Queen’s Journal Policy Review Ad-hoc Committee to the review of the Queen’s Journal Policy.”
The second proposed amendment was revised by Rocchi in a statement to The Journal which will require that policy related to section 14.1.4 of the AMS Constitution be presented to the AMS Assembly for approval by April 30, as well as establish an Ad-hoc Committee to the review of policy, with a mandate to be presented to the December Assembly, according to Rocchi.
The original committee would’ve consisted of the AMS President, AMS Secretariat, AMS Commissioner of Social Issues (Internal), two voting in AMS Assembly, a member of Society of Graduate and Professional Studies (SGPS) council, and the current Editors in Chiefs of The Queen’s Journal.
In an e-mail to The Journal, Rocchi explained the motions were led by “The Journal’s refusal to comply with a decision released by the Judicial Affairs Office in April 2024,” and the concerns about the need to protect student anonymity in the press, stating the AMS is committed to protecting students and creating a safe space for them to learn and grow both on a personal and professional level.
In April, the former Journal Editors in Chief received a decision letter from the AMS Judicial Committee (JComm) regarding the story titled, “The top five AMS blunders this year.”
“The decision letter and the email that accompanied it was the first time anyone at The Journal had heard of an investigation, which goes against their process. If a complaint is made, which it wasn’t because all we did was publish a story as part of our general news coverage, then we should’ve had the opportunity to make representations to JComm,” Journal Editors in Chief Allie Moustakis and Skylar Soroka said.
In September, Moustakis and Soroka received a follow-up email from the Disputes Policy Manager that asked for a correction be issued regarding the same story. The email suggested that the name of the former AMS Secretariat be removed from the article to protect procedural fairness.
In accordance with their grievances process, The Journal reviewed the request and issued a response within the 72-hour time period, explaining that the name would remain in the article under section 11.02 of The Journal’s policy. Moustakis and Soroka reassured the complainant that the article was written based on accurate reporting, reminding them the AMS received an opportunity to provide a comment at the time of the events and before the article’s publication.
On the matter of privacy, in September 2023, the National NewsMedia Council dismissed a complaint against The Journal in the case G.H. v Queen’s Journal. The complaint raised concerns about the publication of sensitive and potentially identifying information for a news article, about a university student who had been arrested for tresing.
“The NNC is one of the few ways The Journal’s held able. To think that we aren’t able to anyone, the way the AMS does and is framing these motions, isn’t only ignorant but deeply insulting,” Moustakis said.
“We have a clear grievance process that’s been in place for the last 20 years, which the AMS is well aware of. Journalists with over 20 years of experience sit on J-Board, ensuring our practices meet professional standards. Our names [the editors] are associated with every story we publish. Every story with a correction says so at the bottom of our page,” Soroka added.
Before the NNC complaint was filed, the complainants request for retraction was denied by the then-Editors in Chief, Asbah Ahmad and Cassidy McMackon. Appealing this decision, the Queen’s Journal Advisory Board unanimously upheld the decision made by the Editors in Chief ing the decision not to remove the article. Later, a complaint was filed with the NCC. After deliberation, the NCC noted The Journal handled the concerns of the student and complaints with the “appropriate care and sensitivity,” while reporting on a story of public interest and the case was dismissed.
By further criticizing the AMS’s proposed changes, calling them “incredibly Orwellian,” the CAJ argued policies and practices, described as “” could interfere with journalistic activities, comparing them to actions seen in authoritarian regimes.
“These are the kinds of exercises that we witness in tinpot dictatorships and authoritarian regimes—not at public institutions of higher learning in Canada,” Jolly said.
The proposed motions are scheduled to be voted on Nov. 18 during the Special General Meeting.
Tags
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].
Wow.
This is absolutely abhorrent!!! The AMS should be ashamed.