Skip to main content

University of Minnesota

University of Minnesota Libraries

ONLINE EXHIBITS

Daily: Surveillance & Secrecy

The Minnesota Daily Masthead Page Header Panel 12

Clipping, "Why Such Secrecy?," by Malcolm M. Willey to President James L. Morrill, November 14, 1951

Clipping, "Why Such Secrecy?," by Malcolm M. Willey to President James L. Morrill, November 14, 1951

Even though strides in student participation were made by the end of Spring 1951, students and Daily staff were troubled when the Board of Regents began holding executive sessions the following fall that excluded both the public and the press.

As a result, Daily staff responded to the lack of transparency in the November 14, 1951 editorial, “Why Such Secrecy?” Editor Robert Brunsell wrote that the Board of Regents were responsible to the state legislature and the people of Minnesota, and by not having public access to their meetings, the Board of Regents were not fulfilling their responsibility. Brunsell also asserted that it was the Daily’s responsibility to record the news of the University of Minnesota, and with no access to information, the success of the newspaper could diminish over time.

This editorial spurred Malcolm Willey to ‘clip’ and share it with President Morrill, as an example of the Daily’s awareness and suspicion. Willey advised Morrill that a reply was ‘pertinent’ in order to reassure Brunsell and Daily staff that the President’s door was always open.

Notes, President James L. Morrill, July 16, 1952

Notes, President James L. Morrill, July 16, 1952

Editorial, "Executive Sessions: 2 Doors Should Be Opened," The Minnesota Daily, October 4, 1955

Editorial, "Executive Sessions: 2 Doors Should Be Opened," The Minnesota Daily, October 4, 1955

Editorial, "Executive Sessions: A Door Opens -- Partially," The Minnesota Daily, October 5, 1955

Editorial, "Executive Sessions: A Door Opens -- Partially," The Minnesota Daily, October 5, 1955

This editorial clipping was kept next to notes taken by Morrill concerning student publications during the 1951-1952 academic year. He noted that there was “unbridled unfairness” to the administration and that the Daily was “slanted” in their news writing. The monitoring by the University’s administration of the Daily during this time period is evident that there was reason for Brunsell and Daily staff to be suspicious.

Throughout the remainder of the 1950s and under Morrill’s presidency, the Daily continued to formulate their editorial campaigns around the accessibility of news and information within the University’s administration.

The clipped editorials from October 1955 illustrate the opinion that all issues under discussion and consideration by the administration were of interest and concern to the student body, and that only an “open door” would allow the transparency of decision making to be understood by the public and the press. The staff of the Daily continued to protest the denial of information and expressed their responsibility in acknowledging this missed opportunity through written print.