On April 17, 2002, The Daily Orange faced the first formal challenge to its independence since it broke away from the university financially in 1991. University spokesman Kevin Morrow wrote a letter to the dean of students requesting the university conduct a review that would more clearly define The D.O.’s relationship with Syracuse University.

‘My contention was The D.O. wanted to play two sides of the street: a student outlet and also a professional outlet,’ Morrow said when recalling the incident. ‘I believed that its status needed to be more clearly defined.’

Tito Bottitta and Ashleigh Graf were editor in chief and managing editor, respectively, at the time. Morrow’s request was in response to what he and Sue Edson, director of athletic communications, felt was an unfair editorial published by The D.O. on the number of passes the paper had been granted to cover the NCAA Regional Tournament held at the Carrier Dome.

Morrow, Edson, Bottitta and Graf had two meetings in which the university requested a retraction or correction from The D.O, Morrow said. When Bottitta and Graf refused, Morrow wrote the letter.

Morrow’s letter stated his wish to tackle the question of ‘What is The Daily Orange?’ Since 1999, the paper’s relationship with the university had been defined by an agreement drawn up with then-Chancellor Kenneth ‘Buzz’ Shaw. The agreement acknowledged The D.O. as an independent entity that would not be subject to censorship but could enjoy distribution on campus and rent university housing.

If the paper was a student organization, it should have been subject to review of its practices and a faculty adviser. If it was an independent entity, it should not have been given distribution rights or university housing, Morrow’s letter stated. If The D.O. could not be distributed on campus, it would have to find another way to reach students.

When recalling the incident, Morrow said the letter was meant to hold The D.O. to a greater level of responsibility and accountability.

‘My intentions were not to censor The Daily Orange,’ Morrow said.

Bottitta and then-assistant news editor Justin Young both said the paper had always had a good relationship with Morrow, and his actions in response to the editorial were surprising.

‘It was hard, it felt like this betrayal,’ Bottitta said. ‘Like, how could Kev. Mo. do this?’

For Bottitta and the paper’s staff, the challenge to the paper’s agreement with Shaw was nerve-racking.

‘We were worried that the university would listen,’ Bottitta said. ‘If the chancellor changes their mind or if somebody is persuasive enough and changes the one mind that matters, The D.O. could be put in a really tough spot.’

Jim Carty, a former assistant editorial and assistant sports editor in the late 1980s, read about Morrow’s request in an article published in The D.O. on April 24, 2002. In disagreement with Morrow’s intentions, Carty e-mailed some old co-workers, and word of the situation spread. Carty said he felt Morrow was attempting to use his position to exert power over the paper’s content.

Carty and Morrow had multiple conversations regarding the issue, but a group of SU graduates and D.O. alumni felt it was important to take the issue to the highest level — Chancellor Shaw. Seventy-three alumni signed a letter to Shaw decrying Morrow’s request to re-evaluate the relationship.

‘Within a week or two we had several dozen people involved, and I think everyone was under the general feeling that the university was trying to bully the paper, and that wasn’t something that we wanted to see happen without bringing some attention to it,’ Carty said.

Ultimately, the incident wound down as the school year came to an end, Morrow said. No university censorship was placed on the paper, and the Shaw agreement continued. Bottitta said he did the best he could to try and promote institutional memory among the staff. With such a high turnover rate, it can be easy for editors to forget the mistakes of those before them, he said.

But despite the quiet end to an incident that jolted the paper’s staff and alumni awake, it served as a reminder of the importance of The D.O. as an independent entity.

‘It certainly was a reminder of why The D.O. is independent,’ Young said. ‘We have a thin fishing line thread between the organization and the university, and no matter how tiny that is and how well safeguarded it looks, they can still shake that line. And they can still threaten you.’

kronayne@syr.edu

Published on February 20, 2011 at 12:00 pm