Breeze Reporters Charged by Judicial Affairs
October 23, 2009 • By Katie Thisdell, The Breeze
Print This Post
Email This Post
Updated Friday
HARRISONBURG, Va. — Judicial Affairs has charged two Breeze journalists for alleged disorderly conduct while reporting, possibly violating their constitutional rights.
Tim Chapman, editor-in-chief, and Katie Hibson, a contributing news writer, were notified by e-mail Thursday afternoon of the charges: trespassing, disorderly conduct and non-compliance with an official request.
Judicial Affairs Director Josh Bacon was out of the office Friday and unable to comment. He has previously said that ongoing cases are confidential.
Adam Goldstein, attorney advocate for the Student Press Law Center, said the charges go against the First Amendment rights not just for journalists but for everyone.
“We all have the rights to ask questions if we want to,” Goldstein said. “It’s a pretty straight forward case.”
On Sunday, Hibson, a sophomore media arts and design major, was investigating the Oct. 14 trespassing incident in Hillside Hall, which The Breeze learned about when JMU sent a “Timely Notice” e-mail Sunday morning. Hibson said she was invited into the residence hall Sunday afternoon when she identified herself as a reporter. She said she was invited into the building by resident Ariel Spagnolo, who Hibson said was no more than 15 feet away as she interviewed people. After identifying herself to Resident Adviser Maria Lane, Hibson said she was asked to leave, which she promptly did.
Hibson returned to Hillside later in the afternoon with Chapman, a senior media arts and design major, while accompanied by a resident who also works on The Breeze staff. After trying to interview residents, Hibson said Hall Director Sarah Woody and Lane asked them to leave the building, and Woody then called police.
Woody and Lane did not return calls Friday afternoon.
Goldstein explained that residence hall staff should not have the authority to choose who to kick out of the building.
“There’s nothing disruptive about knocking on doors,” Goldstein said.
According to Policy J8-100 in the JMU Student Handbook, disorderly conduct is any disturbance “that interrupts the orderly operation of the university and/or infringes on the rights of community members.”
Hibson does not feel she violated the policy because they did not raise their voices, did not become violent or push people to do anything they did not want to do.
“I know I didn’t do anything wrong,” Hibson said. “The fact that Judicial feels this is a case worth pursuing is absurd.”
The policy on trespassing, J40-101, states, “Any individual refusing to leave an area as directed by an authorized faculty or staff member is responsible of trespass.”
Chapman and Hibson have been requested to set up an appointment with Bacon at Judicial Affairs.
Contact Katie Thisdell at breezenews@gmail.com.
Comments
23 Responses to “Breeze Reporters Charged by Judicial Affairs”
Got something to say?
Check Out New Videos!
March 4, 2010 Issue in Print
2010 Baseball & Softball Guide
So when the SGA Speaker violates no policies, uses his intelligence to outwit a computer system, comes forward of his own volition and apologizes profusely for his actions, the newspaper editor calls for him to resign. But when that same editor of the newspaper violates a University policy, he acts as if “freedom of the press” makes him God and he thinks he is just being persecuted. What a little child! I hope he apologizes, else I think he should “step down.” Good riddance to bad trash!
Also, Katie Thisdell should resign for presenting her own opinion in a news article. When she says, “possibly violating their constitutional rights,” she presents her own opinion and is stepping across the solid boundary between news and opinion. Of course, for The Breeze, seeing this solid boundary is somewhat difficult. She should have written, “Judicial Affairs has charged two Breeze journalists for alleged disorderly conduct while reporting. Adam Goldstein, attorney at the Student Press Law Center, argued the pair’s constitutional rights were violated…” As it’s written, however, Thisdell herself is claiming the pair’s rights were violated. By presenting her opinion, she has compromised her objectivity; as the news editor, she has a duty to impartiality that is even more paramount than the rank and file writers, and she should resign her position.
Arthur…cheating isn’t against JMU policy? i thought it was….
hahahaha
“possibly violating their constitutional rights.”
Oh please go cry me a river. If they do something wrong, they should be punished, isn’t that what you so strongly believe in ehhh Breeze?
I’m tired of all this hypocrisy.
So when members of the SGA slip up, you call for them to resign? If that’s the case, then you should ask the leaders and other members of your staff to step out of their positions. What the people in both groups did should still be frowned upon, but don’t be a hypocrite. Just because you think you have a juicy story doesn’t make it right to enter a dorm. Breaking and entering into a residence, whether it be via piggybacking or some other means, is still breaking and entering. Do what’s right for the paper, resign, and maybe it will start to become less of a tabloid.
Part of the problem is that JMU students largely believe they have a constitutional right to the Plan B pill, but not to carry firearms on campus.
AVL: You’re wrong. The details probably wouldn’t interest you, but you are.
[...] to reports in the Breeze and a local paywalled publication, two Breeze reporters face University charges after interviewing [...]
Theres more important things to worry about than 2 reporters trying to gain information on a story. RA’s have a stigma attached to them that they are anal, non-flexible annoyances to students and this only serves as more evidence. If you want to have “distrubances” and enforce the policy then have an RA hanging out in the halls around 2am every weekend and charge those drunk students w/the same offenses. This is absurd.
The 2 reporters have done nothing wrong.
Fitzgerald, when I heard about the SGA speaker, I looked up the honor code and judicial policy. Assuming he didn’t violate any homecoming policies, which seem to be few and far between, he is innocent in terms of JMU policy. If you have a different opinion, I’d be happy to hear it.
I still think Tim is guilty as sin and has no leg to stand on. Those who know him tell me Tim thinks he was wronged and that he’s complaining about it. Not only did he actually violate policy, he doesn’t have the guts to admit he is wrong, much less apologize. That is the sign of delusional self-importance.
Arthur, I ask you once again, since when is cheating not against any JMU policies?!
L, let me give you a primer in logic: it is impossible to prove a negative. Therefore, I cannot possibly prove it’s not against policies to cheat on a banner contest. You have the burden of proving that it IS against JMU policies to cheat on a banner contest. So tell me what policy he violated.
Also, the dictionary defines cheating (the intransitive verb form, which this is) as “to violate rules dishonestly.” Therefore, to cheat, one must violate some external rule and do it dishonestly. Show me what rule that was.
Obtaining outside help in academic matters is against the honor code, and doing so dishonestly is cheating. However, voting a lot for the banner contest didn’t violate any rules and therefore fails the first prong of the cheating test.
Nah, Arthur, you’re really wrong. The two options I’d suggest trying are simply stating your opinion again and again and again as fact, or typing in all caps. Meanwhile, the argument on one side is that the same rules apply to journalists as anyone else, specifically, if they’re in the dorms as guests, they have a right to be there. The argument on the other side is that they broke the rules because an email says they did. That’s not a substantial basis for a system of laws.
While I can’t agree entirely with Arthur’s stance that they should all resign, I think he raises a great point about these writers becoming more accountable for their stories and conduct as journalists. They cannot claim that they went into Hillside as guests; with a clear intent to probe the victims in their on-campus HOME, The Breeze published secondhand information without regard for student privacy. This claims to be a STUDENT orientated paper, yet it has taken a derisive and reckless tone in stories that deal with their peers. Why is it that they are so quick to crucify fellow JMU students involved in “alleged” infractions, until the script is flipped? Innocent until proven guilty is a policy that applies to all Americans, but obviously The Breeze thinks it only applies to their saintly contributors. Get down from the high horse and give your audience the same benefits you feel so entitled to have.
You can be asked to leave by anyone on the Hall staff if they feel you should not be there. Returning again, well, that’s gives them all the right to call the police. Reporter or not, follow the rules. Just because you have “first amendment rights” doesn’t give you free rights to do what you want.
For the record, I’m not a student. Having said that, I’m not clear what it is the reporters supposedly did wrong. From the facts as presented so far, the argument on one side is that the Breeze people were there as guests, legally. The argument on the other is that the RA had the right to ask them to leave. If that’s the case, can the RA ask any guest to leave at any time without a reason?
JG,
Yes any RA in the dorm has the right to ask any guest to leave at anytime if the something is being disrupted, they can’t name who their guest is and give you a room number, or simply just piggy backed in. And in any case there is no reason anyone should be able to trespass into a dorm and not be punished for it. The RAs are keeping the best interest of the community in their mind. I feel like the hall staff did everything according to their policies given to them by the Office of Residence life. And really if you are stupid enough to come back after a member of the hall staff has asked you to exit the building then the cops should be called, that action is just asking for it. So it serves them right, and I hope they do get charged. Freedom of the Press does not mean you are God and that you can do whatever you want.
What these reporters did is neither a crime nor a concern of an RA. If it was, the students probably would have said something. Van Lay, get off your high horse and quit making excuses.
The differences in the cases are simple:
1) Elgert from the SGA simply knew what he was doing was bad, but did it anyway, showing poor judgment.
2) The Breeze reporters had no idea what they were doing was a problem (and rightfully so, because it’s not technically against JMU Policy) and even cooperated with the “authorities”.
3) Since when is “trespassing” defined as: being welcomed into a room, then being asked to leave, then going quietly? That’s a crock.
This is a farce and the resident advisor should be the one charged with fascism and abuse of power
Anyone who believes this case has any merit is delusional. If you think otherwise, you clearly have not read the definitions of the charges brought against the two reporters, or you disbeleive the Breeze’s account of what happened, due to some ridiculous bias a few here seem to harbor.
Former RA, its funny that you mention how the reporters “played God”. The reporters were perfectly within the rules (there, as guests, with a resident), and just because an RA is worried that the whole event was going to reflect poorly on her, she broke the rules by asking them to leave for no apparent reason (you could call that “playing God”…thats no more of a stretch than your analogy). These reporters have done nothing wrong and this whole case is ridiculous.
Ok, I don’t go to JMU. But i think this whole thing is pointless. First off, the reporters were let in and were guests in the dorm. They were simply asking people questions, not disrupting anything. No one was ever forced to answer their questions. They did absolutely nothing wrong. This is a clear example of RA’s abusing power.
Second, the guy who deleted the cookies on his browser allowing himself to vote multiple times was clearly cheating. Here’s why: those ‘cookies’ were programmed in to the system in order to keep people from voting multiple times, hence “one person, one vote.” DELETING THE COOKIES AND VOTING MULTIPLE TIMES IS CHEATING. If someone were to falsely vote in a government election, they would be imprisoned. Obviously no one should go to jail for a homecoming infraction, but I think you understand my point.
“Free Katie Hibson”
Wow, way to violate the First Amendment! Universities, no matter how important they think they are, still have to obey the constitution. As a professional journalist I can say this is great training for Hibson’s career and I welcome her into my profession.
I am not a student of JMU. It’s my opinion that since the reporters were there as guests, and one of the staff was a resident of that dorm, that they were there legally. If someone says come over and I’ll talk to you - that person is giving permission to enter the dorm. If anything, the RA is violating the rights of the student to have a guest come into their “home” as long as the guest is not violating other University rules. Why did the RA kick them out? Simply because they stated that they were reporters? When was it against the rules of JMU to be a reporter for a student paper? Either the RA is a total moron and has something to hide, or there are other things that happened that aren’t being reported. IMHO, I think it’s probably a little of both.
I think the whole thing is going to hurt the University; after reading this I know that I wouldn’t feel comfortable in a place that allowed an RA to dictate who can or can’t have guests. This puts JMU in a bad light. The right thing to do is to drop all charges and put this whole issue to rest or else there is going to be one heck of a lawsuit with even more bad publicity for JMU. I’ll be watching it.