Soon after I wrote the post on Feb. 18, I emailed Mike Sapienza, vice president for enrollment management, the person who made the final decision to cut the outside links to my stories. I asked him directly why the cuts were made.
It was not about the language.
No, the person who usually sends out the mass emails to the school asked Sapienza about the article with the language and he decided to cut the outside links for another reason: “I don’t see any reason for us to include other stories,” he said.
He never read the stories which he deleted and he never bothered to see what the precedent was when it came to sending out email blasts.
I met with him a few days later to discuss his decision and to clarify what he said.
I brought along copies of email blasts of other news organizations such as The Daily Caller, The Washington Post and The Politico, that have links to other, outside stories. I wanted to show him that what I was doing was not unusual.
However, he said he didn’t want to bother the student body with extra information. Everyone on campus gets the emails, he said, and some have complained about getting the mass emails from the college.
This is where Sapienza and I disagree. He sees the email as an advertisement for Triangle links. I see it as another way to inform students. Faculty, staff and students can have a working knowledge of the campus even if they skim the headlines and read one story.
If they don’t want the email, they can delete it. That’s the beauty of free speech.
The student handbook says that every announcement to the college must go through the Office of Student Life. Maybe all notices must be tailored to the student body, maybe not.
But the result of this edit is still the same: censorship.
I provided information which I thought would enlighten and benefit the student body. Someone made a decision that the campus did not need that information.