Behold the hard-hitting, principled, serious newspeople of the Columbia Spectator, guided by the platonic ideals of independent journalism. Consummate professionals, they are. Just you try to dictate the terms of the newspaper’s coverage. You think that’ll work?

Actually, it probably will.

This week, the Columbia College Student Council Elections Board attempted to nix the Spectator’s endorsements for University Senate elections (for which voting is now underway). The board has strict policies proscribing any campaigning outside a certain window of time — from April 4 through 5 p.m. on April 10 – and the CCSC made very clear it intended to rigorously enforce those rules. Thus, the board demanded that any endorsement run by the Spec be published before the 5 p.m. deadline. Somehow, publishing anytime thereafter would amount to a violation of election rules on the part of the endorsed candidates (even though interviews were conducted during the campaigning period). The Spectator condemned the Elections Board’s attempted breach of its journalistic autonomy. And then, like the submissive children they apparently are, the Spec’s editors decided to accede to the CCSC’s demands.

As explained in an editorial:

For the University Senate elections, we endorse no one…A series of unfortunate events, due to policies imposed by the Columbia College Student Council Elections Board, made it impossible for Spectator to suggest candidates in the 2011-2012 election.

Seriously, Spec? The Columbia Student Council doesn’t have the authority to tell you to do jumping jacks, much less run (or not run) endorsements. So, why the hell did you give in? You at least had a good reason, right? Nope.

[The] Spectator’s independence could not shield the candidates themselves from potentially disastrous consequences, and that was a risk that we were not willing to take.

Know this: When confronted with absurd, empty threats, the Spectator’s editors will acquiesce, with little or no resistance. But they want you to know that they aren’t one bit happy about it!

We object on principle to the conception that Spectator—or any independent news outlet—should have to answer to a governing body. The Elections Board’s actions reflect a profound misunderstanding of the relationship between the press and political entities.

Surely the Elections Board is quaking in its boots. “Oh gosh! The Spec objects!”

Lucky for you, Columbia readers, IvyGate is perfectly comfortable taking the risk of issuing endorsements. That in mind, we’ve reviewed all the pertinent campaign literature, and will put our support behind two candidates: Chris Canales and Steven Castellano. We wholeheartedly encourage you to vote for Chris and Steve. Our rationale?

Maybe it had something to do with how much we loved their platforms.(Very convincing arguments, guys.) Or maybe we chose arbitrarily, since they were the first two candidates, alphabetically speaking. Or, maybe we consulted IvyGate’s model for voter behavior and decided, hell, why not just pick at random? The point is, we haven’t spoken with any of the candidates — translation: none of the esteemed gentlemen have breached election protocol — and if the board were to disqualify Canales and Castellano based on IG’s endorsement … well that would be kind of fucked up, right? Which was the point of this whole exercise, to begin with. We’re not so concerned with the state of electoral politics at Columbia — like we said, “student governance is a joke” — but worried that an Ivy League newspaper is, from the looks of it, run by timid jokers.

Spec editors: You said you were concerned about the Elections Board “exert[ing] its authority” over your newspaper? Well good fucking job. By kowtowing to the CCSC’s ridiculous demands and opting to eschew endorsements, you effectively did let them dictate your coverage and compromise your journalistic integrity — no matter how transparent  you were about it, or how harshly you rebuked the Elections Board in the aftermath.

Why not call the CCSC’s bluff? If you’re really so adamant that you’re a serious, independent newspaper, why not run the endorsements, condemn the Elections Board, and make very clear that no one has violated any of the election codes? That would be a ballsy, admirable demonstration of your independence. Submitting to the irrational demands of a student government that wields literally no actual influence over you, and then condemning them for thumbing their noses at your autonomy? Sorry, but if anyone misunderstood the concept of independent journalism this week, it was the Columbia Spectator.

Neither the Spectator, nor the CCSC have yet responded to our email inquiries.

(Disclosure: My coeditor here at IvyGate, Constance Boozer, is an appointed member of the 2013 CC class council and staff writer at the Spectator. She has completely recused herself from this commentary and endorsement.)