Bosley responds to OCC comments

An op-ed piece written by Karen Bosley appeared in Tuesday's Asbury Park Press. It was written in response to this op-ed piece written by Tara B. Kelly, vice president of college advancement at Ocean County College, which was published by the Asbury Park Press on Dec. 28.

Here is the full text of Bosley's piece:

Officials don't understand how college press works
BY KAREN L. BOSLEY

Before responding to the recent attacks on my reputation by Tara Kelly, vice president of college advancement at Ocean County College, I must reply to the telling comment made by OCC trustee Stephan R. Leone at the board meeting during which I, as newspaper adviser, and three excellent, non-tenured faculty members were not rehired for the next academic year.

Leone said, "This is not a reflection on the work of the students at the newspaper, but on the supervision there." That remark not only illustrates how out of touch the trustees are with what is going on in the institution taxpayers have charged them with overseeing, but also reveals the ignorance about the college press so prevalent among management types today.

Paid $4,900 for at least 30 weeks of often multiple 12-hour days, I earn my stipend by giving advice to student journalists who are adults and free to ignore what I say. I am not now, nor have I ever been, either the supervisor or the censor of the work of these public-college journalists, who enjoy protection from administrative control.

It is time to look at some of the untruths in Kelly's Dec. 28 commentary "OCC adviser ousted for not implementing changes."

Her reason for my termination: "Three years ago, the college commissioned a comprehensive assessment of all student media by an outside expert with stellar credentials in higher education mass communications programs. Bosley was provided the results of that review, which included excellent suggestions on how to improve the Viking News. She fought the implementation and did not develop an adequate plan to make the changes recommended, although she was repeatedly and explicitly directed, in writing, to do so by her supervisor."

It is good to expose this "comprehensive assessment" to public scrutiny at last. Puzzled by many aspects of it, another adviser and I sent questions to Frank Wetta, academic affairs vice president, asking about the commissioning of and selection process for it. We received different responses, neither of which answered any questions, but Wetta's response berated me for asking questions at all.

Among the information sought: who had commissioned the study, its purpose and scope, who paid for it and how (taxpayers vs. grant), its cost and how the "expert with stellar credentials" was selected. This "expert," a professor at a four-year, church-related college who makes videos, had someone else (who was unnamed, with no credentials given) assess the Viking News because he apparently lacked the expertise to do so.

What Kelly called a "comprehensive assessment of all student media" had been described by Martin Novelli, then dean of humanities, as a study of OCC's television offerings, not of the journalism program or of student media.

During the day he spent on campus, the "expert" spent five minutes with me during a break between my classes. After he was given a brief visit to the newspaper office by Lee Kobus, academic technology director, he snatched two issues of the Viking News as he left.

His "comprehensive assessment" has little merit as either an academic or a student-media evaluation. College administrators who want quality assessments use quality standards and procedures, such as those of the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications. After reviewing OCC's assessment, a professor at a university with ACEJMC-accredited programs asked me, "Do you know if the evaluator was paid for this? It might be interesting to track the money trail to find out what this cost."

The "excellent suggestions to improve the Viking News" to which Kelly refers included: using the newspaper "as an extension of the classroom," greater adult oversight and changing the layout. According to Mark Goodman, the Student Press Law Center executive director, all three are or can lead to censorship, and layout is something the editors determine.

David Adams, chairman of the board of the law center and director of student media at Indiana University, said, "I cannot agree there should be more direct adult oversight. That would be illegal. If your student newspaper is like ours, it changes from semester to semester in scope and quality. It's not supposed to be a P.R. piece, but a learning piece."

When Kelly said I "fought the implementation and did not develop an adequate plan to make" those changes, she is telling the truth. I have always fought and will continue to fight the implementation of censorship. There is no such thing as "an adequate plan" for censorship.

The five-year plan the college suddenly asked the Viking News for had no due date, and no changes were "repeatedly and explicitly directed, in writing by (my) supervisor." It is hard to tell who this supervisor is. And when the newspaper produced a five-year plan, the same yardstick was not applied to other student media.

The newspaper plan called for the purchase of some new Macintoshes (as replacements) and software, plus computer desks to replace the health-threatening tables now in use. Prior to last fall, no administrator suggested to me or to an editor other PCs had to/should be purchased. Until Kelly said so in her op-ed piece, no one directed me to incorporate PCs into the production process.

One other result of the "comprehensive assessment" is the college's creation of a digital-media program that was intended to replace the existing journalism one, even though there was no journalism in the curriculum. No input from journalism faculty was sought or considered. Although the program claims to prepare students for "a variety of production positions at newspapers and magazines" and give students "hands-on writing, production and programming experience at the college newspaper," no such preparation or experience is included.

Despite Kelly's claim, I have no need to create an "orchestrated campaign of public commentary." Most professional and student journalists are independent thinkers and as outraged by the college's actions in these matters as I. They are quite capable of public comment without prompting.