By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Tensions have arisen between Indiana University and its student newspaper, the *Indiana Daily Student*, resulting in the elimination of print editions and the firing of its faculty advisor, Jim Rodenbush. The advisor was terminated for refusing to censor the homecoming edition, sparking concerns about censorship and First Amendment rights. The university claims the shift from print is a financial decision, yet the move has drawn criticism from advocates for student media, alumni, and high-profile figures. The *Daily Student* continues to publish online, but the recent events have led to accusations of administrative overreach and attempts to control the paper’s editorial content.
Read the original article here
Indiana University fires student newspaper adviser who refused to block news stories. This is the crux of the matter, and it speaks volumes about the current state of affairs, doesn’t it?
The situation that developed centered around Jim Rodenbush, the advisor to the student newspaper, who was fired for refusing to comply with an order to censor stories about homecoming celebrations in the print edition. He made the difficult decision to stand by his principles, choosing integrity over obedience, and he doesn’t have any regrets about that. That’s a good quality in a person. It certainly sounds as though his decision could get him into trouble.
Now, it’s clear this is not about a singular story, the situation seems to be linked to a broader agenda. Rodenbush wasn’t aware of any specific story that triggered the administration, yet he speculated that the university was moving towards protecting itself from negative publicity. It appears to be a pattern of controlling information and suppressing free speech.
The loss of the print edition is particularly concerning because the accessibility of a physical newspaper can’t be understated. It’s an easy way for people on campus to pick up a paper and be exposed to the news. Taking that away intentionally cuts off a large amount of the reach of these young reporters. The university’s claim that they won’t interfere with the editorial judgment of the students is directly contradicted by the instruction to block certain stories.
It’s interesting how this kind of censorship can backfire. It could very well trigger the Streisand effect, as more attention is drawn to the censored information. The entire situation feels eerily familiar. The university administration’s actions seem to echo those taken by others in positions of power who try to control the narrative.
There’s talk of the ACLU possibly getting involved, ready to fight for the students’ rights. Chancellor David Reingold’s statement about supporting free expression and editorial independence rings hollow when weighed against the actual actions taken. It’s hard to believe in the face of what’s happened.
The comment about it being a “place that absolutely should know better” is a bit confusing but I believe the person is implying that universities, especially those with long histories, should understand and uphold principles of free speech. The fact that the university acted as it did is pretty bad, really.
Universities will be “sane” when students can fully grasp the essence of what university truly means. That it is a reversal of uniformity. Perhaps this is exactly the kind of publicity that would endear them to those in power in Washington, DC.
The feeling of someone “getting out in front of something” is strong, and perhaps it relates to a developing story or something from the recent past that has driven the university’s actions. What exactly was it about the homecoming celebrations that the university wanted to keep from being printed? It is something to wonder.
The university administration’s handling of the situation is worrying, given the recent events. The removal of the student newspaper’s advisor and the cutting off of its print editions looks like a deliberate move. The idea of stopping any negative press is certainly not the right way to act. The fact is that this sort of thing is a form of censorship.
The situation raises concerns about the influence of political agendas. The university’s president, Pamela Whitten, was selected by Republican legislators rather than through the normal selection process. Apparently, after taking office, Whitten rolled back COVID-related precautions.
The university has also made a move to try and separate the Kinsey Institute from the university, which can be seen as a way to appease the state’s Republican leaders. There were protests in early 2024, and police snipers were on the roof of the student union. This was followed by bans on Palestinian-related events, while allowing pro-Israel events.
The list of actions is something that has many people worried.
The fact that the student newspaper has covered allegations of plagiarism against President Whitten suggests a potential motive for censorship. The timing of the demand to block stories related to the homecoming celebrations, soon after the university’s actions, raises additional questions.
The fact that the student newspaper advisor got support from Purdue’s student paper really says a lot about the situation. Purdue owning its own presses allowed the papers to be printed and delivered, showcasing solidarity and belief in the truth.