Letter from the Editors: Student dollars pay for censorship on campus

On Nov. 14, we were informed the AMS intends to bring forward two motions at the Special General Meeting on Nov. 18, which pose a direct threat to The Journal’s editorial autonomy and the principles of free speech and academic freedom on campus.

Since 1873, The Journal has been providing Queen’s and the Kingston community with independent, student-driven journalism. Our mandate is to inform, challenge, and amplify the voices of our campus—including the AMS itself. Editorial autonomy is at the foundation of any news organization’s mission, and any attempt to undermine this  jeopardizes the integrity of The Journal and the trust we’ve built with our readers over the past 151 years.

One of the proposed motions seeks to place The Journal’s editorial policy under the control of AMS Assembly, citing Section 14.1.4 of the AMS Constitution. While the AMS Constitution does refer to The Journal’s obligation to not publish unlawful material, it doesn’t grant the AMS the authority to intervene in its editorial policies. The AMS is seeking to define what can and can’t be published by deferring executive editorial decisions on behalf of The Journal to the Judicial Committee, an external AMS body which normally deals with AMS constitutional interpretation and certain Non-Academic Cases. This move removes the ability of the newspaper to make decisions about its own operations and undermines the executive authority of the independently elected Editor(s) in Chief of the paper. The Journal is already held able by two groups: the Journal Advisory Board, which includes our Editors in Chief, and key AMS figures; and the AMS Board of Directors. These groups make sure we follow financial rules and policies, but AMS by-laws also specifically protect our editorial independence, meaning the AMS can’t interfere with our editorial decisions.

The AMS highlights concerns about student privacy and safety, which are important, however, it’s crucial to note The Journal follows industry standards, as affirmed in a decision by the National NewsMedia Council (an independent oversight body with professionals who have expertise in journalism ethics) last year, where they found The Journal applied “appropriate care and sensitivity while reporting on a story in the public interest.” On top of this, standards, methods, and procedures already exist to ensure privacy and safety are paramount in The Journal’s operations. When concerns amongst of the public exist, The Journal has a comprehensive set of rules and procedures which create the space for due process. While we welcome constructive criticism and take ability for our actions, censorship is never the solution to potential concerns. Instead, we believe in collaboration, open dialogue, and being approached with a fair opportunity to address any concerns brought forth about The Journal’s practises.

Editorial autonomy isn’t a privilege, it’s a necessity for a free press. The AMS’s attempt to require Assembly’s approval of The Journal’s policy isn’t procedural—it’s a dangerous overreach. It allows for potential censorship and interference by a governing body with its own political and institutional interests. This isn’t about ability, it’s about control.

While the current proposal involves the formation of an ad-hoc committee to review Journal policy, the current policies went through an extensive review during the  2023-24 school year and were updated on May 1 after months of work. The process included the voices of the former Editors in Chief, former AMS Vice-President (Operations), former Vice-Chair of the AMS Board of Directors,  industry experts, Queen’s faculty, and students at-large. The proposed Special Assembly motions demonstrate how the AMS is embedding itself directly into editorial decision-making processes under the patronizing guise of “.”

The AMS is an external body attempting to control The Journal’s internal practices, violating the very principle of journalistic independence enshrined in Section 1.04 of Journal Policy which according to AMS rules, states that it’s officially agreed that The Journal should operate independently, without interference from student government or outside groups, to protect its editorial integrity. Section 14.1.5 of the AMS Constitution s this notion, stating the editorial autonomy of The Journal is guaranteed by the AMS Corporate Bylaws and Constitution, and should be honoured by all Officers of the Society, the Corporation, and the University.

The AMS’s argument hinges on a flawed interpretation of its own constitution. Any significant changes to The Journal’s operations require the approval of the Journal Advisory Board—not AMS Assembly. The AMS has overstepped its bounds. Its role is to student initiatives, not to micromanage them. The proposed motions would undermine The Journal’s ability to provide unbiased reporting, particularly when covering AMS decisions—an organization run on millions of dollars of student funds—and marginalized individuals on campus.

This isn’t just about The Journal. It’s about the precedent these motions would set for independent student voices on campus. If ed, this move would open the door to further editorial interference in the future, eroding the trust and credibility The Journal has built over its 151-year history.

We urge the student body and of the AMS Assembly to reject these motions. Editorial autonomy is the bedrock of a free press, and once compromised, it’s nearly impossible to restore.

—Allie Moustakis & Skylar Soroka

Tags

student journalism

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].

• Previous
• Next