College students are dizzy in the whirlwind of change from the teenage drama years to the vastly different burdens and joys of adulthood. Payers of tuition, parents and students alike, expect university officials to be wise Sherpas, accompanying those students along that rocky climb. Yet recent incidents at the University of Missouri, Ithaca College and Yale University have shown that those who lead many of our colleges and universities are failing in their responsibilities.

My perspective on this is manifold and sweeps over several decades. As a student-government leader at a large state university, I negotiated with administrators and trustees over student demands. In graduate school, I was the resident director in charge of two large freshman dormitories. Today, I teach at three major universities and my two children are college students.

Every aspect of university life is, and ought to be, a learning experience. Ideas of every type should be discussed, debated, and considered during these years that are made for acquiring the knowledge that will guide and govern the travails of life. But there’s a dichotomy that sets the table for the trouble we’re seeing today.

When it comes to issues such as alcohol use, sexual activity and political participation, many college students desperately want to be treated like hardy adults. But those who demand “safe space” and college-enforced protection from offensive words or ideas incongruently are asking university officials to treat them like fragile children.

These paradoxes shouldn’t surprise us. Research shows that the human brain doesn’t fully develop until age 25. For that reason, our call for redress should primarily be aimed at those who’ve been educated and trained to help young adults thrive and mature in a college setting. Yet it’s precisely those administrators who too often seem to be paragons of pusillanimity when this challenge calls for them to be people of principle.

The most glaring example of this is Timothy Wolfe, who resigned as the president of the University of Missouri under pressure from a losing football team refusing to play, a fraction of the student body boycotting classes, and a solitary student declaring he would not eat until the president resigned. The entire offbeat episode evoked the unmistakable analogy of a toddler threatening to hold his breath until he gets his own way.

None of this is to say that some of the issues raised by the students, such as issues of racial division or social unrest, are unserious or unworthy of substantive debate. Rather, the notion that students with grievances — perceived or actual — claiming the forced resignation of a university president as a trophy should be as offensive to those of us who revere higher education as the poaching of Cecil the lion was to those who love animals.

And lost in the noisy swirl of chants, declarations of being offended and accusations of so-called micro-aggressions is a larger, more durable concern. At least at public universities, which are unequivocally bound by the restraints of the U.S. Constitution, the willingness of the army of the aggrieved to deny the value and applicability of First Amendment free-speech protections is deeply troubling.

One student leader at the University of Missouri gave a national television interview in which she declared that she was tired of those who cite to the First Amendment as a reason why she might have to allow others to speak. Funny thing about the Constitution: it’s not optional.

Such a misshapen view of basic American tenets is a prime opportunity for college leaders to step in and advocate for civil dialogue from all sides. Yet, as resignations hung in the air, most were too intimidated to do so.

I’ve taught hundreds of students over the years. I’ve learned as much from them as they did from me. Our exchange of information took place in and out of the classroom on a wide variety of topics, some of which were nowhere in my syllabus.

Foremost in my mind in those interactions was the hope that these young people could get something from my class that would better prepare them for the vexing challenges that awaited them beyond the wide green expanses and metaphorical training wheels of campus life.

University leaders must not shrink from their duties to be the rock of principle in a rushing stream of anger, confusion and unrest. Students won’t always like it when they don’t get all they ask for. But they will learn a great deal about the real world of family life and career where angry demands are not always met and shouted grievances are often rebuffed.

###

Mark R. Weaver is a Columbus attorney who teaches at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, the University of Akron, and the School of Government at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Though ABC’s “Scandal” is about as dramatized as they come, the premise of the primetime show, now in its fourth season, is based on reality. Inspired by Judy Smith of Smith & Co., a DC crisis management firm, the show follows Olivia Pope (Kerry Washington) and her firm, Olivia Pope & Associates, as they usher high-profile clients through crises like public scandals in which a politician’s reputation is at stake.

“In the last 15 years or so, crisis communications has become its own profession,” says Mark Weaver of Communications Counsel. “Before that, you would go to a public relations firm or go to an advertising agency and hope they had experience with crises.” Though their work doesn’t have the same Hollywood spin as Olivia Pope’s, Columbus has its share of PR professionals who specialize in crisis communications.

MARK WEAVER

A few years ago, the city of Steubenville, Ohio, hired Communications Counsel when news broke that one of their high school students had been sexually assaulted by two football players. “The city manager knew that the reputation of Steubenville was at risk,” says Weaver, who was the deputy attorney general of Ohio before founding his firm. “Most people around the country had never heard of Steubenville, Ohio, and the first time they were hearing about it was this very negative story.” Weaver created steubenvillefacts.org (which is no longer active) to try to set the record straight about the city and the incident. A media law and litigation lawyer, Weaver and his firm do PR, advertising and crisis communications for 12 to 20 clients, including two members of Congress. Says Weaver, “We help people at the intersection of law, government and media.” communicationscounsel.com

HINDA MITCHELL

Hinda Mitchell has 20 years of PR experience, dealing with crises including work injuries and the 2010 Iowa egg recall. She founded Inspire PR Group last July; about 20 percent of the firm’s work falls in the crisis management category, she says. Work with corporate companies, especially in the food and health care industries, as well as nonprofits, takes Mitchell and her team around the country, and sometimes around the world. “It has been my experience that very few crises happen between 9 and 5, Monday through Friday,” says Mitchell, whose daughter is a “Scandal” fan and likens Olivia’s “fixer” mentality to her mom. “There are so many moving parts at the time of a crisis, there’s no one superhuman who can do it all. We all need our own gladiators.”inspireprgroup.com

BILL PATTERSON

An industry veteran, Bill Patterson started his career in broadcasting and in 1998 founded Reputation Management Associates. Patterson hosted media relations workshops and worked with hundreds of clients, he says, including E. Gordon Gee, former Gov. Bob Taft, banks and hospitals, counseling them on effectively communicating to the public and press. “In my career, I’ve dealt with every crisis you can dream of, from chemical leaks to people who told lies,” he says. “One day, I got a call in the afternoon that a crane had cut a woman in half. I said, ‘You want me to handle it, then do what I tell you.’” Patterson wrote a statement for the company whose equipment was involved and advised the company’s president to lower their American flag to half-staff and send someone to stay with the family of the woman. “Sometimes you can recommend just the tiniest thing to have a big impact,” he says. Though now retired, Patterson still occasionally advises Anthony Huey, who’s now president of Reputation Management Associates. media-relations.com

It likely ranks as one of a public school superintendent's worst nightmares.

A well-liked teacher who had violated the basic trust of students and parents. And the details in this case were particularly horrifying -- he secretly videotaped kindergarten students using the classroom bathroom.

How do you communicate the terrible news with parents and the community at large? And how do you prevent it from becoming a sensationalized media circus?

That's the situation that Loudonville-Perrysville Schools superintendent John Miller found himself in two weeks ago when law enforcement officials informed him of the allegations and evidence again former McMullen Elementary School teacher Elliot T. Gornall. Gornall had caused a previous stir in November when he was arrested on drug possession charges and almost immediately resigned his position. The latest revelations stemmed from that investigation.

As detailed in today's front-page story, Miller and district lawyers immediately sought professional guidance.

The district contracted with Communications Counsel Inc., a well-regarded, high-profile Columbus public relations firm whose many specialities include crisis communications.

According to Mark Weaver, head of Communications Counsel, Miller persuaded him to accept a $5,000 flat fee ­­-- compared to the firm's normal $495 per hour fee, which would likely have been in the $20,000 range for the services provided.

It was $5,000 wisely invested.

This situation had the making of a national media feeding-frenzy in the 24-hour news cycle environment. The glare and attention on our community could have lasted for weeks if the salacious details of the case leaked out bit-by-bit over time. That would have only extended the pain felt by many across the community.

Instead, Weaver and his colleagues urged transparency, encouraging law enforcement and school officials to get out as much information about the situation to the public as possible ­-- including setting up a comprehensive website -- lpschoolfacts.org.

On Saturday March 7, Weaver and his colleagues carefully choreographed a series of meetings, news releases and finally a news conference. First were two private meetings with kindergarten parents, followed by a detailed news release and then a news conference that included law enforcement and school officials. Communication Counsel reps had proactively notified media outlets between Cleveland and Columbus on Friday that a significant topic was going to be discussed, and followed up Saturday morning what the topic was in regards to. The presentation at the news conference was detailed as were answers to questions.

As Weaver said: "We fed the beast the full buffet." And scheduling the news conference on a weekend afternoon, likely helped minimized the frenzy. Yes, the story got play from San Francisco to Washington, D.C., to New York City and even in London. But it could have been far worse, stretching out for days.

Even journalists, who often are skeptical of public relation types, were impressed by their efforts.

School officials and local law enforcement officials have handled a very difficult situation as well as could be expected. McMullen principal Annette Gorrell deserves special mention because she was forced to step in as the district's main spokesman when Miller was sidelined at the last minute by a medical emergency. She performed well under fire as her hurt and compassion for the students and the parents came through loud and clear.

This story likely will heat up again as Gornall's case moves through the justice system.

But due to the proactive efforts of local officials in dealing with the initial onslaught, the community can begin the healing process a bit sooner without the constant glare of outsiders.

Mark Weaver's op-ed on Ohio's "false statement" statutes was published in the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Ruling on false speech lets voters decide

Mark R. Weaver teaches election law at the University of Akron and practices elections law as a partner at the Columbus law firm Isaac Wiles.

America arose from a dispute in which colonists loyal to the crown and advocates of independence volleyed truths and falsehoods in a war of words. Leading up to the actual war, the strongest weapon of our Founding Fathers was their political speech.

Speech remains the strongest weapon of political adversaries today – the context has just changed to election campaigns. In a recent Cincinnati case, the U.S. Supreme Court moved toward making that speech more free with a unanimous ruling that could mean the end of an Ohio ban on false campaign statements.

In 1775, Thomas Paine anonymously penned "Common Sense" and ignited a firestorm of dissent against British overreach and overrule. Many loyal to the king clamored to learn who wrote it, so they could press for treason.

But Paine held fast to his belief that, in political speech, "the doctrine, not the man," matters most.

Even today, courts protect purveyors of potentially unpopular political speech from the byproducts of outrage. In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an Ohio woman who circulated fliers opposing a school levy was protected by the Constitution, despite that fact she violated a law requiring her to disclose her identity.

So it's fundamentally American that political speech is best judged on its own assertions. Government intrusion to referee this process is unnecessary and unconstitutional. Some scramble to weigh down political actors with regulations circumscribing who can speak, when, where and how.

With good reason and as they did in two recent Cincinnati cases, the U.S. Supreme Court declines these invitations, even when lawmakers and regulators have been unable to resist.

The cases brought by the conservative groups COAST and the Susan B. Anthony List allege that Ohio's law against false political speech – as judged by the appointed Ohio Elections Commission – chill free speech.

The justices' unanimous ruling in June merely permits the cases to be heard by a lower court. However, they hinted that laws like Ohio's may violate the First Amendment.

If this result comes to pass, the self-anointed defenders of the vague but popular concept of "good government" will thunder and lament this decision as the spark of infernal ruin. They'll predict the reign of deceit, deception and doom in elections.

Yet if courts do eventually strike down Ohio's ban on false campaign statements, they will leave undisturbed the ultimate judge of political speech: voters who take the time to do their homework. A well-informed citizenry can be credited for this nation's rise, and a poorly informed electorate will be blamed for any future demise.

Simply put, all voters have the ability to discern campaign fiction from nonfiction. By conducting basic Internet searches and using existing fact-checking by media and nonprofits, the truth of a candidate's claim can be uncovered.

In court, we trust laypeople on a jury to decide which side is telling the truth. We instruct them to use common sense to determine which witnesses have a motivation to lie, which scenarios are plausible and which advocates are trying too hard to deny the obvious.

Voters can do the same with claims made by politicians and interest groups.

Ballot box decisions matter – a lot. Surely the choice of who should make, judge and execute our laws deserves as much time from us as our avocations.

As Americans, we've searched mightily for the sentinels of our democracy and they, to borrow a phrase, are us. And the fact the Supreme Court is unraveling laws against false campaign statements won't change that.