Endorsement, Part 2

Yesterday, I reported on Hamline University political science professor David Schultz’s endorsement of the Democrat candidate in a hotly contested race for state representative in the western Minneapolis suburbs.  Today, I will dig a little deeper into the background of the good Doctor to explore the fault lines between media, the academy, and politics.

First, let me say that I’m all for the Rooseveltian “Man in the Arena.”  For his part, Dr. Schultz tweeted that the candidate in question was a former student of his, and that he “Rarely if ever” endorses.  Another former student, Hamline graduate and current Republican State Rep. Nick Zerwas, Tweeted that he had not been endorsed by Prof. Schultz.  No matter, Professor Schultz is free to fight for his causes in any way he sees fit.

In his long career Schultz served as president of Common Cause’s Minnesota chapter, among many posts.  In 2011, he gained some personal notoriety for his successful efforts  to keep Republican politician Tom Emmer off the faculty of Hamline University. 

No, I blame the media outlets who put forward Dr. Schultz as a neutral, detached observer of the political scene in a manner that gives his comments more weight than if they had been uttered by a mere partisan.

For an example of this phenomenon, take Dr. Schultz’s involvement in the recent Jesse Ventura lawsuit.

In October 2013, the St. Paul Pioneer Press  reported on Dr. Schultz’s involvement in the defamation lawsuit filed by former Gov. Jesse Ventura against the late-Navy Seal Chris Kyle over a book Kyle wrote.  The newspaper reported,

Ventura claimed the book hurt his reputation and made it harder to get work.  The defense asked David Schultz, a professor at Hamline University and frequent political commentator, to assess those claims.

In an October 2012 report, Schultz--who has taught courses in methods of research--said he found Kyle's statements "have done little, if anything to hurt Governor Ventura's reputation in politics or in the media or to hurt his income prospects in politics or in the media."

After Kyle's death, Schultz revisited the issue, saying Ventura's decision to continue the suit against the widow could be a significant variable in how people view the former governor's reputation.

His verdict: Ventura's pursuit of the litigation hurt his reputation more than the book did. Schultz wrote a supplemental report, dated Oct. 8, outlining his findings and research methodology.

At the time of that Pioneer Press report, it was not clear whether Schultz report would be used in the trial.  As Channel 11 later reported, in the end, Schultz did not testify in the case.

However, at the time the verdict came down (in Ventura’s favor), a number of media outlets included quotes from Schultz on the trial’s pending verdict and final outcome, without ever mentioning his earlier role on behalf of the losing party.  (See the Associated Press, the local Fox affiliate, Minnesota Public Radio, and David Schultz himself.)

In its coverage of the case, the local CBS affiliate does mention Schultz’s role in the case in framing their interview of the Professor on the jury’s deliberations.

That Dr. Schultz chooses sides in issues of great controversy is something that he is perfectly entitled to do.  Over his long career, Schultz has chosen a side in politics, as well.

That certain media outlets portray him as an unbiased expert, calling it as he sees it—without fear or favor—does a dishonor to media consumers.