Security Divided On Media Policy

It's amazing what one can discover at the bottom of a trash basket.

Custodians Scott Smith and Eugene Zsigray happened upon a memorandum sent from Director of Security Keith James to his staff last week that explicitly states James' desire for staff to direct all media inquiries to him instead of directly answering themselves. The language of the April 10 memo states, "Safety and Security employee (sic) will not give any statement or information to the news media unless authorized to do so by the Director of Safety and Security or his/her designee."

Although James denied the connection, it seems plausible that the memo could represent his response to the April 7 issue of The Review, in which a letter from Senior Communications Officer Jane Macarthy appeared, detailing the "state of mistrust" in the Security department. Moreover, in the March 10 issue of The Review anonymous Security officers criticized James' manner of managing a student who had become enraged over a parking ticket.

James denied any direct connection between the April 10 memo and internal criticism from security officers expressed in The Review. "The department has always had these policies," James said. "It's a matter of being professional and making good judgements, not a restriction on officers' fundamental rights."

Director of Human Resources Ruth Spencer justified James' decision to clarify Security's policy of having all contacts with the media pass through him. "It's my understanding that there was a similar policy with the previous Director [of Security] also," she said. "I think it creates difficult management situations when officers bombard the media."

President of Oberlin's Security Union Christine Groff stated that James' policy places fundamental restrictions on officers' rights to freely express themselves.

Referring to Jane McCarthy's disciplinary meeting following her submission of an April 7 letter to The Review in which she detailed the "state of mistrust" within the department, Groff said she asked James whether or not he thought he "had control" over McCarthy. "Yes, I do," James allegedly responded.

James claimed that the April 10 document simply constituted a clarification of an already extant media policy within the Security department. However, Groff said, "If I wrote a letter saying Keith James was the best director, there would be no retaliation. Because someone was criticizing his management styles, he gets defensive."

Spenser supported James' assertions that the explicit statement in the memo did not constitute an imposition on officers' rights to freely express themselves in a public forum. "He [James] is not trying to inhibit officers - communication with the media has to happen in a way that is appropriate. Complicated situations shouldn't be battled out on the front page."

Each custodian said that officers had been calling in and not working as a means of protesting against James' managing tactics. James, however, denied this flatly, saying he had no knowledge of this occurring within his department. "No one [in Security] knows anything about that," he said. "The staff shared with me the sentiment that they are diligently doing their work."

Groff's concern lies in her belief that James' policy fundamentally prohibits the security officers' First Amendment right of freedom of speech. "Jane knew she was taking a chance in writing the letter, but she also knows she is a citizen of the United States with a Constitutional right to freedom of speech. There's no freedom in that department," she said.

Moreover, Groff asserted that a policy that restricts a member of the Oberlin community from self-expression contradicts the Oberlin aesthetic. "Oberlin is all about freedom of expression and speech - I shouldn't be stopped as an individual from speaking on behalf of myself."