Five years ago, a group of a dozen or so Communication/Journalism students were on the verge of temporary insanity.

A group of us had spent the past seven months seeing this newspaper’s predecessor get shut down, researching ways to build a new publication, garnering support for our plan and, yes, planning and producing a prototype edition of the Cardinal Courier.

We encountered quite a few challenges along the way. Some folks on campus didn’t like the idea of the student newspaper leaving its affiliation with student government. Others didn’t like the notion of a new name for the newspaper. Then there was the question of funding.

But none of those challenges prepared us for the last hurdle we had to face before sending the first edition to press: covering the pending no-confidence vote in a college president whom had just agreed to fund our first edition. (For those students who have no idea what I’m referring to, visit the Cardinal Courier archives in Lavery Library and check out the April 23, 2002 edition.)

We never wavered on the decision to cover the controversy—even though it meant ripping up our original front page at the eleventh hour. In fact, the question of if we should cover the story was never even discussed. A legitimate student newspaper had to cover this story and an illegitimate student newspaper wasn’t worth our time and energy, nor would it be to our future readers.

That two-week span defined what the Cardinal Courier should be.  It should be an open, honest and accurate airing of issues. It should be fearless, yet responsible, in its efforts. It should be a reflection of the community it covers. It should strive for continuous improvement. It should operate freely, unencumbered by either intimidation or retribution from administration.

I’m proud to say that, five years after its launch, the Courier has largely lived up to those ideals. It’s not perfect, however. Mistakes happen and errors in judgment sometimes occur. There were decisions I made during my tenure as editor in chief that I would make differently today. Those who followed me, undoubtedly, feel the same.

But that is the beauty of what has been created. It’s a real newspaper, dealing with the same issues that face all professional newspapers. Some people love it. Some people hate it. And Courier editors hear from both groups—frequently.

Instead of utilizing this space to celebrate the Courier’s successes (that will be done in a Courier alumni reunion later this month) I’m using it to lay out a challenge to Courier staffers, both present and future, and to the Fisher community as a whole: don’t settle.

Don’t settle for a good publication. Expect a great one. Don’t settle for average stories and mediocre debate. Demand more. Don’t settle for secrecy. Fight for open dialogue.

The Courier has achieved more in five years than any of its founders could have ever imagined. But its mission is not completed, nor will it ever be. Its predecessor failed because both its staff and the Fisher community settled for lesser quality. Thus far, the Courier has not.