The Medill Innocence Project is one of a kind; it helps bring justice to inmates who have been wrongly convicted. This project freed 11 suspects, five of which were on death row. These are amazing feats no doubt, but it appears they do not enthrall everyone.
An Oct. 24 New York Times article revealed that a Northwestern University journalism professor who oversees the Medill Innocence Project has come under fire by local prosecutors.
As a part of this project, Northwestern journalism professor David Protess works with students who investigate old crimes. In reviewing these old cases, the students examine whether or not the suspect was rightfully convicted.
Currently, the students are investigating the conviction of a man named Anthony McKinney, who was convicted for a murder committed 31 years ago.
Tired of being outdone by student journalists, the local prosecutors stepped up their game.
As of late, they have made ridiculous demands — student grades, grading criteria, course syllabi, expense reports and e-mails are among the items subpoenaed by the prosecutors.
This subpoena insults the students on several grounds. It suggests these students will not cooperate with prosecutors to seek justice and questions the integrity of student journalism.
Students have provided prosecutors with video recordings of witnesses, as well as affidavits. Apparently this crucial content is not enough to determine whether a suspect is innocent or not — the prosecutors want the students’ personal information, as well.
Course syllabi and grades do not belong in the courtroom; Protess maintains that stance.
Grades are not based on whether a suspect is proven innocent or guilty upon their scrutiny. In fact, several of the cases they analyzed resulted in the conclusion that the suspect was rightfully convicted.
Rather, like every academic class, marks are given based on the quality of the student’s work.
Looking at the history of Protess and his student journalists (many of whom have gone on to accomplish great things and occupy notable posts), subpoenaing grades and course syllabi is not only irrelevant, but a violation of privacy.
Unfortunately, this is hardly the beginning of it. What is at the heart of this issue is whether student journalists are protected by federal shield laws. Protess and the students could be held in contempt if the court rules they must turn over the requested documents. Such a ruling would regard this project as an investigative agency rather than a collection of journalists with a common goal: the pursuit of truth.
Even worse, it might discourage future generations of student journalists from participating in something greater than themselves. The training ground where many renowned news reporters got their start would be forever decimated.
If the court rules in favor of this subpoena, it will be an awful day for student journalism and the student bodies it serves. The jobs of interviewing and reporting would be severely hindered. This begs the questions, if journalists cannot do their job, who will watch the watchmen?
Reach Andrew at andrew.hedlund@asu.edu.
