"The organic act which lies back of the work college editors are doing provides for the gathering and dissemination of information. It was never intended that public funds should be used for "institutional promotion," "propaganda," "press-agenting," "space-grafting," "publicity," "self laudation," "selling" or call it what you will. If "institutional promotion" - to give it the benefit of the least obnoxious designation - comes as a "by-product" of news and helpful information, there's no harm done. But an item aimed to benefit the institution rather than the person who reads that item is not only subversive to the purposes of the college, but is also subversive to the interests of the so-called "by-product." The college has no mandate to work the newspapers; yet it has a sufficient warranty to work for its readers."
Response to "'Selling' vs. news" by Bristow Adams, Cornell University. Harris notes that the Cornell president and dean probably spend time seeking support from the legislature or other sources for their institution and its work. Asks if their efforts are (as Adams argued) "subversive to the purpose of the college?" Also observes that a pastor is paid for ministering to the souls of his flock, but he pauses frequently to pass the collection plate. "I maintain that if education is worth having, then it is justifiable to educate people to support educational institutions."
