CPJ formulates values statement

CPJ formulates values statement CPJ formulates values statement
by Talia M. Wilson

Last Saturday, members of the CPJ proposed, debated and decided upon several areas to comprise their new values statement.

But making the decisions was no easy task, taking most of the day and prompting a wealth of discussions.

First, adviser Dianne Conrad gave each member a list of values with seven numerical worths, ranging from essence of personal opinions and behavior to conduct expected of others to values that should guide the individual and/or others for the good community. Then, everyone was instructed to choose 10 of the values they felt were important, for their position in the CPJ, for themselves as individuals, and for the CPJ as an organization. In those areas, they had to reduce the 10 to five and then down to two and eventually to one. A few chose the same value for all three, while others ended up with a different one for each.

Each person had to think of a value that wasn’t on the list and share it with the group. Then, everyone made a list of 10 values they felt are important to the CPJ. Once the results were compiled, discussions began and eventually members came up with the following terms: inclusivity, excellence, accountability, and integrity.

Copy editor Mitch Hahn-Branson proposed inclusivity and offered the following definition: "a variety of opinions and experiences in (the) paper; open meetings, Friday forums, opportunities each week."

Business manager Andrew James supplemented the definition: "no bias as to who can contribute to the paper, (which) includes bias based on race, gender, philosophical, and political views; Anyone can contribute!!"

Newly hired photo coordinator Joe Jatcko sparked a discussion about hate-driven material and whether or not the CPJ should publish such submissions. Nevertheless, Jatcko in turn supplemented inclusivity: "barring constitutionally unprotected speech," which is defined by the CPJ Operations and Ethics Manual as "obscenity, libel, incitement to imminent lawless activity, fighting words, invasion of privacy, advertisements for illegal products or services, copyright violations, certain matters involving national security, expression which causes material and substantial disruption of school activities."

James proposed excellence but was unable to define it; however, he said that it should be included "in all aspects of producing for a weekly newspaper." Hahn-Branson supplemented: "helping the student body get their ideas across; pursuit of clarity of thought; the credibility of the CPJ as a student resource."

Copy editor Rob Hopt proposed accountability and defined as follows: "a knowledge that this paper is a service for the community at large and that our first priority is to inform and entertain the community and that we should have an ‘open door’ policy." Hahn-Branson added: "make people own their own words; when a mistake is made, make acknowledgment of mistake by publishing prominent corrections box."

After integrity was proposed, news coordinator Katie Thurman suggested that it be combined with excellence and accountability, as she said she felt it (integrity) encompasses both of those values as well as a "commitment to student work, our ideas, (and) the paper."

However, others in the group weren’t too sure. Hopt disapproved simply because, although he said integrity and accountability may go together, excellence is different. Sports coordinator Kyra Berkovich said she thought integrity was all-encompassing, based on the dictionary definition (see below). Circulation manager and paper archivist Claire Harlock agreed with Hopt, that accountability and integrity go together, but excellence should be separate as it is likened to quality. Managing editor Renata Rollins said, "it (combining) would depend on what other terms came up," but she preferred the values the way they were.

Before the integrity could be defined or a decision on combining it with other values was reached, Conrad divided everyone into three role-playing groups and each given parts varying from Model Member to Brilliant One to Playboy/Playgirl to Nonconformist to Blocker. The task was simple – finish the process in those alternate roles. Then, after a short amount of time, Conrad permitted the groups two revert back and debate and/or discuss the values as themselves.

Group One said they thought diversity might be a better word than inclusivity. In addition, they said excellence should be included in integrity and added two more values: informative and innovation.

On the other hand, Group Two said that accountability belonged under integrity, and they added flexibility as a value and defined as such: "adapting by working toward common goals, through learning and collected intelligence." In addition, they said the term "excellence" should be substituted with "commitment to community" but didn’t provide a definition.

Group Three concurred with the substitution and defined commitment to community: "(to) provide a supportive learning lab for students; open forum for expression." They, too, said they felt accountability should be included in integrity.

Most of the post-grouping discussions centered around inclusivity versus diversity and definition of values. A suggestion was made to change "inclusivity" to "inclusive" because, as Thurman put it, "inclusivity sounds made up." Regarding, the potential change to diversity, Rollins expressed concern, saying that she felt diversity was a word thrown around too much. Hopt agreed that inclusive worked better than inclusivity and suggested diversity be mentioned in the definition.

While trying to solve the great excellence/accountability/integrity dilemma, the group decided that excellence’s definition would be better suited under commitment to community. Assistant business manager Adrian Persaud supplemented the definition with "dedication to transcending limits." Harlock added: "production, administration and facilitation of paper."

In addition, the group determined that informative should be included in commitment to community and innovation in flexibility, which was reworked: "adapting to work towards common goals among the Evergreen community and welcoming all suggestions regarding the CPJ."

Then, the ongoing debate about combining accountability and integrity continued. The main discussion centered around whether accountability falls under integrity or vice versa. An example of an issue raised was liability. Hopt addressed that the CPJ shares a dual responsibility with the author and felt it should "acknowledge that we (members of the CPJ) are legally, morally and ethically liable for something."

Due to time constraints, the definition of integrity was quickly formulated – based upon the dictionary’s version of "a firm adherence to a code of moral or artistic values" – into "conducting ourselves in accordance with the CPJ Operations and Ethics Manual and stated goals and objectives."

Currently, integrity and accountability remain separate, though that may not stay permanent. Eventually, the value definitions may be reviewed and reworded for clarity and conciseness.

The Cooper Point Journal Values Statement, as of Jan. 24, 2004:

These are the values that the CPJ organization represents and stands by:

inclusive – a variety of opinions and experiences in paper; open meetings, Friday forums, opportunities each week; no bias as to who can contribute; includes bias based on race, gender, philosophical and political views; anyone can contribute; barring constitutionally unprotected speech

commitment to community – in all aspects in producing a pertinent and weekly newspaper; helping student body get their ideas across; pursuit of clarity of thought; the credibility of the CPJ as a student resource; dedication to transcending limits; production, administration and facilitation of paper

accountability – a knowledge that this paper is a service for the community at large, and that our first priority is to inform and entertain the community and that we should have an "open door" policy; make people own their own words; when a mistake is made, make acknowledgment of mistake by publishing prominent corrections box

integrity – conducting ourselves in accordance with the CPJ Operations and Ethics Manual and stated goals and objectives

flexibility – adapting to work towards common goals and welcoming all suggestions regarding the CPJ

You're visitor # Counter

since July 7, 2004.