My thesis partner, Roman Safiullin, and I recently reached a compromise with UF to include video footage shot for our thesis film in post-earthquake Haiti after the recent UF travel ban had been imposed.
While we are happy that our film would not have to be compromised in any way, we feel that our situation shines an informative light on the operation of UF and College of Journalism and Communications. And although we have often kept our comments brief and indirect, we now feel the obligation to speak out.
Let’s first be clear — the university agreed to a compromise only after we offered the concession of a disclaimer at the beginning of our thesis film that stated the university did not “sanction, sponsor or approve” post-earthquake material.
If this concession was not accepted, we would have filed suit in federal court through our attorney, Gary Edinger.
The university has since admitted that the administration’s interpretation of the policy was overly broad.
It is extremely disappointing that it took the threat of a lawsuit to reach a compromise, and it suggests that the university administration is one that operates primarily on confrontation rather than cooperation.
The university has since opened a Human Resources investigation into the actions of our professor, Churchill Roberts. While the intentions of this investigation have not been clearly defined, it appears as another threatening and retaliatory measure. Churchill was a supporter of our film but had no hand in our decision to return.
Unfortunately, the College of Journalism and Communications was unwilling to forcefully challenge the administration on core issues of academic freedom and faculty and student rights. We had hoped the college would advocate for the values of journalism in Haiti during this tragic time.
Instead, the college encouraged us to submit a film that was half-finished, raising serious questions about academic integrity. Despite a permanent installation of the First Amendment within its walls, the college appeared disinterested in speaking on its behalf.
But a larger issue remains — the university still enforces a travel ban that is unnecessarily restrictive and denies graduate students and faculty from performing important work in Haiti.
While we understand the need for liability protection, we feel that liability waivers or additional paperwork could be completed to offer the university proper protection. Other universities throughout the country have offered similar measures.
We believe that the tenor of comments from the administration regarding the travel ban have also served to perpetuate negative stereotypes about the Haitian people. During this process, the administration stated that we could be “harmed, injured or killed” while working in Haiti even months after the earthquake.
Having traveled to the country since the earthquake, we can say from firsthand experience that the administration has an inaccurate and ill-informed picture of the country.
In the end, we believe our situation should question the type of values that the university instills in its students.
Rather than promote a community of engaged citizens, the university seems to prefer a Student Body that submits to bureaucratic complacency and legal restraint.
We can only hope the issues that our situation raises will promote a discussion, both in the College of Journalism and Communications and the university, about the academic sacrifices that are often made in the name of administrative duty and bureaucratic technicality.
