By Emma Murphy, Oklahoma Voice
OKLAHOMA CITY — A committee reviewing allegations of free speech violations against Oklahoma’s third largest university said it is unable to rule out that a violation occurred.
But the Oklahoma Free Speech Committee said its analysis found that University of Central Oklahoma presented a “substantive counter position” that administrators were not acting in a retaliatory manner when they decided to end printing of the student newspaper, The Vista.
The legislatively-created nine-member group on Tuesday voted to accept the findings after reviewing two complaints of free speech violations filed against UCO and testimony from the university’s administration.
The committee recommended that the University of Central Oklahoma improve internal and external communications and “further build goodwill” with students, but did not provide any guidance on how to do that.
While the committee is advisory in nature and does not have the power to adjudicate or make a decision on the matter, the report noted the complainants have a right to sue the university if they still believe there were violations of free speech.
The October complaints alleged the school’s decision to end the print publication of The Vista was an attempt to restrict student free speech and censor the content published. The university has repeatedly denied these allegations, and The Vista continues to publish online.
The Free Speech Committee found there was merit to both the complaints and the response provided by UCO’s administration, but found that it was “not sufficiently clear … that UCO’s decision to end the print edition of The Vista was ‘substantially motivated by the content of the newspaper,’” according to a report released by the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education’s office.
“This does not mean a violation of free speech did not occur, just that UCO’s arguments present a substantive counter position,” the analysis reads.
The committee’s investigation found that there was no evidence that UCO acted in “a retaliatory or suppressive manner” and that the university’s “pedagogical, budgetary, staffing and ideological rationale for its decision could be genuine.”
“A university has the right to decide not to fund a student newspaper and just can’t make that decision for one reason in particular, which is because of the opinions expressed in the student newspaper,” said Andy Lester, chair of the committee.
Adrienne Nobles, a spokesperson for UCO, said the committee’s findings should “allow our journalism students at The Vista to prepare for the modern world.”
“The report confirms the university’s unwavering commitment to free speech and expression and supports our administrators and faculty in making relevant adjustments to academic programs that prepare students for success in the workforce,” she said in a statement.
Amy Hall, the daughter of a former adviser to the student newspaper, and Jon Womastek, a UCO alumni, who filed the complaints, both said they were disappointed by the committee’s analysis.
Hall said she continues to believe the university’s decision to end printing was in retaliation for negative coverage of the administration and a move to curtail press coverage.
“I feel like their conclusion does not have merit,” she said.
Womastek said he appreciated the committee considering the complaints against UCO. While he was disappointed, Womastek said he was not surprised by their findings.
“We’re at a time where thin-skinned people that are in positions of power cannot stand any kind of accountability,” he said. “And a newspaper is one of the last places where simple truth can be told, and that sometimes it’s embarrassing to people. It’s a shame that the committee wasn’t able to see that.”
Both said they were not contacted by the committee after submitting their complaints.
Members of the committee said they met with UCO’s administration Dec. 5 where administrators presented evidence and arguments to counter the claims made in the complaints.
Michael McNutt, a journalist and member of the committee, said the situation seemed to be the result of a “failure to communicate” between UCO’s administration and the newspaper’s stakeholders.
