Determination
88
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Dr. Morris Kurtz
against the St. Cloud Times
Dr. Morris Kurtz appeared, as did Don Casey, executive
editor of the St. Cloud Times. The complaint involves a claim of unfair
comment in a newspaper editorial.
Background:
In its August 19, 1990, Sunday edition the St. Cloud Times published
a feature story on clothing styles for students returning to school.
The newspaper selected four students who then went "shopping"
at a local mall. Each student's selections were reported in the story,
with the price of each item and the name of the store where the item
could be purchased. The story was accompanied by three color photos,
in two of which a male student was shown modeling selected apparel.
The story noted that the young man was a sophomore at the University
of North Dakota (UND), where he "plays cornerback on the football
team and needs nice clothes for travel."
Dr. Morris Kurtz, men's athletics director at St. Cloud State University
(SCSU), saw the story and notified UND that an infraction of the rules
of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) might possibly
be involved. UND then contacted the NCAA directly, as required by
rules of the North Central Intercollegiate Conference (NCC). The student
was subsequently suspended for one game for violating a rule prohibiting
student athletes from permitting use of their names or positions to
advertise or promote the use of a commercial product or service.
The St. Cloud Times reported the student's suspension
in a Sept. 5 news story, pointing out that none of the students kept
any of the clothes used in the photos and story. The article stated
that it was Dr. Kurtz who had notified UND about the possible rule
infraction. The day after the suspension story appeared, the St. Cloud
Times ran an editorial critical of the NCAA, noting that the student
had acted innocently and claiming that the punishment was "unwarranted."
The editorial then went on:
"Kurtz said he believed he was doing the right
thing to turn Holder (the student) in - a favor he hoped would be
returned if the circumstances were reversed. But how pure Kurtz's
motives were is something only he knows. The possibility of overzealous
rivalry can't be ignored, since Kurtz is athletic director for one
North Central Conference university and Holder plays for another."
Dr. Kurtz's complaint is that the above-quoted portion
of the editorial unfairly impugns his motives and was a "cheap
shot" made without any factual basis. The newspaper says its
observation that the "possibility of overzealous rivalry can't
be ignored" was based on the fact that the student was a St.
Cloud resident who had been recruited by the SCSU football team but
who had chosen instead to attend UND.
Dr. Kurtz contends that as a university athletics
director, charged with enforcement of NCAA rules, he had no choice
- in fact, he had an ethical obligation - to report the possible rule
violation. He says he reported the incident to UND first, rather than
directly to the NCAA, as a professional and ethical courtesy. If he
had contacted the NCAA directly, or if he had not reported the incident
promptly and it came to light later in the season, he says the NCAA
might have imposed more severe punishment on UND, such as game forfeits.
Following publication of the editorial, the St. Cloud
Times published three letters to the editor in unequivocal, strong
support of Dr. Kurtz. One letter was from SCSU's faculty representative
for the NCAA, the second from the NCAA commissioner, and the third
from UND's dean and faculty athletics representative.
Discussion:
Considering the rivalry between the two universities, the recruiting
history of the student, and the seeming unfairness of the NCAA in
suspending the student for an unknown rule violation, we think there
was factual basis to at least raise the question of why Dr. Kurtz
had reported the possible rule violation. While the editorial comment
was unfair in that it did not explain why Dr. Kurtz "believed
he was doing the right thing," we conclude that the comment was
within the bounds of provocative editorial comment. The editorial
comment served to air a controversial and little-understood collegiate
policy concerning the governance of student athletics. We, therefore,
deny the grievance.
More, however, needs to be said. At the Council hearing
it was made clear that Dr. Kurtz did not have any ulterior motive
and that his only motivation in reporting the incident was his ethical
obligation as a responsible administrator of university athletics.
Indeed, UND, the university adversely affected, agrees.
It is unfortunate the editorial writer did not investigate
further the NCAA rules on the responsibility of school authorities
to report possible infractions, before raising the question "rhetorically"
in the editorial. If this had been done, it seems to us it would have
been much clearer that the editorial's disagreement was not with Dr.
Kurtz but with the NCAA's application of its own rules.
This is a close case, as the Council vote indicates.
The majority opinion upholds, we think, the normative standard for
editorials which permits provocative, even at times seemingly unfair,
comment. It is at least to the newspaper's credit that it published
the three letters to the editor which effectively rebutted any suggestion
of impropriety on the part of Dr. Kurtz. The dissent, on the other
hand, adopts a more aspiring standard which would require a more solid
factual basis for questions posed in editorials. While there is merit
to the dissent's position, the Council thinks the more normative standard
should apply here.
Grievance denied.
Concurring: Flemming, Graham, Larson, Parrish,
Simonett, Stanley, Stauffer, Stone, Tanick
Dissenting: Gilson, joined by Huynh, Orwoll, Parker,
Pennock - The Times' editorial called Dr. Kurtz's motives into
question without even acknowledging that he had been quoted in an
earlier Times news article as saying that his profession required
him to notify the athlete's school of a possible NCAA violation. The
editor said the editorial's suggestion of under-handedness was based
upon talk around town. Gossip is not reporting, and editorial writers
should be at least as vigilant as daily news reporters, if not more
so.
Abstaining: Hilger
April 19, 1991
Read
Determination 89
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
