Being part of a college newspaper could be one of the bigger tests of self-esteem. Having your words in ink for all your peers to read and critique can be nerve-racking, especially when they stir up controversy. As a former opinion editor for my student newspaper, I remember always being a little nervous whenever the paper was distributed. Not only were my thoughts open to the public, but I also had to take responsibility for the opinions of four or five other student writers.
It took me several issues to gain the confidence to write and assign hard-hitting stories on issues like birth control and abortion, global health, political parties, public policies, sexual abuse and campus affairs. However, essential to the journalism education is learning how to take a stand and stay standing in the midst of opposition and criticism. No lecture or book can prepare a budding journalist for his or her first dose of disparagement.
Unfortunately, I’ve found my student newspaper is currently not providing such an education to its journalism students. Controversial subjects like gay marriage, race relations, party politics, foreign policy, gender issues—all hot topics in light of this year’s presidential elections—are absent from the opinion pages. According to inside sources, the paper has intentionally shied away from such subjects, particularly proposition 8, because the editors feel they cannot ask students to take an unpopular stance on issues that may result in negative backlash from the student body.
Beyond protecting student writers, editors have also noted self-censorship for the sake of self-preservation. They expressed concern that if sections were too controversial, the university administration may force censorship, as seen in other student newspapers like APU rival Biola University’s The Chimes. Because of a few inappropriate and touchy articles, The Chimes is required to submit their copy for staff review before going to print.
However, one look at the opinion pages of The Chimes and it’s clear that their mandated review has not kept the paper from covering hard-hitting issues. The Opinion section boasts headlines like “What if the Right is wrong?”, “The reasons behind ‘No-bama’”, and “Eugenics, systematic genocide and President-elect Barack Obama.” To be fair, APU's The Clause has touched on issues like pornography, women in leadership, religion and science, and the presidential elections. However, approach is everything. By the end of many articles, the writers seem to have all but retracted her or his original opinion.
So who or is what is to blame? While the opinion editor sure is at fault for coddling her writers, I cannot help but think it goes deeper. My generation is a generation of relativists. We’re quick to condemn intolerance and slow to judge anyone. Those, in and of themselves, are great qualities. However, has relativism begun to taint Generation Y’s opinion writing?
I often find myself writing a “no judgment” clause in the midst of my columns and editorials. I’m quick to remind my readers that my way may not be the right way. To offend anyone but the close-minded folk would be so “intolerant” of me! But what is the point of living in a free society if we walk around with our tails in between our legs in fear that our beliefs may cause offense?
Maybe this aversion to oppose others comes from the way we were parented. Many of my generation grew up with “helicopter” parents—the ones that bully our coaches into putting us in the game or confront the mothers of our archenemies. We grew up with the desire, or burden, to please Mom and Dad because they poured all their energy and resources into our success.
Or maybe it’s because in the midst of our human rights campaigns and protests, we’ve come to believe that everyone deserves the right to say what they want, love who they want, and worship how they want. Ironically, though, relativism actually ends up nullifying the concept of justice because relativism says there are no standards that are absolute. And my generation fights for justice on the basis that it is a value that should apply to everyone.
Regardless of the root of paradoxical relativism, it’s hurting the expression of ideas. By shying away from offending, the student newspaper is surrendering its freedoms of speech. It is a sad day for those of us who daily enjoy First Amendment rights when relativism begins to infringe on the freedom of ideas and beliefs. Students, both writers and readers of news and opinion, need to begin to take a stand or the healthy dialogue that comes from disagreements will begin to whither on this campus. And that should begin with the leadership of campus opinion editors.
08 December 2008
14 November 2008
you call that a prank?
Last Friday, a group of students noticed a white truck parked in our university parking lot with a swastika painted in the middle of a confederate flag. Of course, they were outraged and contacted our Campus Safety. The driver of the car was detained and questioned. The story is that he & his friends had been pranking each other over the past two weeks and that was the end result. Then, this student was too lazy to wash his car that week, and had been driving his car on campus all week until it was reported on Friday.
It took our students FIVE DAYS to report two of the most insensitive and hateful symbols in our society. I don't doubt that when students saw they car, they didn't agree with it. However, not until Friday did someone care enough to take the effort to report it. That deeply saddens me. How have we become so concerned with our own time that we cannot stop to stand against something that so hateful and wrong?
Then the next Wednesday, I picked up our student newspaper The Clause to find this article. With a title like "Prank taken too far?" the paper, probably unintentionally, seemed to dismiss the act as a prank. The rest of the article when on to describe what a nice guy this student was and that he didn't mean to do. Just because he's a "nice" guy and didn't mean to offend anyone, doesn't make it okay. Below is my letter to the editor:
But the bigger picture is not simply the insensitivities of the student newspaper. It's the system our school, and most of our society, operates under. It's a system that allows these actions to be labeled a "prank" because they never meant to be hurtful. This system failes to recongize that racism in the 21st century does not look like segratation, lynchings & other blatant acts as it did in the 60s. Racism today looks like stereoptypes, social segregation & asking a member of a minory race to speak for her/his entire race.
Until we begin to acknowledge that racism still exists today, in ways that maybe don't stand out to those in the majority culture--those who, whether they want to not, benefit from the system--then we have little hope at become a just society.
And for those of us who claim to be Christians, I think APU president Jon Wallace has some wise words. "We can talk about faith and empathy, but sometimes we must just do justice... we live in accountability to each other and to God—that we act with justice, mercy, humility, and love of another kind with each other and with our neighbors."
It took our students FIVE DAYS to report two of the most insensitive and hateful symbols in our society. I don't doubt that when students saw they car, they didn't agree with it. However, not until Friday did someone care enough to take the effort to report it. That deeply saddens me. How have we become so concerned with our own time that we cannot stop to stand against something that so hateful and wrong?
Then the next Wednesday, I picked up our student newspaper The Clause to find this article. With a title like "Prank taken too far?" the paper, probably unintentionally, seemed to dismiss the act as a prank. The rest of the article when on to describe what a nice guy this student was and that he didn't mean to do. Just because he's a "nice" guy and didn't mean to offend anyone, doesn't make it okay. Below is my letter to the editor:
Thank you for acknowledging the racist actions that took place last week on our campus in “Prank Taken Too Far?”(11/12). I know “hot topics” are risky for student journalists to tackle. And in order for our student body to start addressing racism on our campus, we need to begin to openly discuss the brokenness in our community. Our administrators’ honest and specific letter was a start. And your article had the potential to be another great step. However, the failure to present both sides was a step back.As a former Clause editor, I understand the nature of a student press and all the complexities that go into producing a paper. There are a dozen explanations for why they reported the story like they did. However, in light of the sensitive state of our campus, their oversights have only added to the hurt and frustration so prevalent on our campus.
Since the Clause is a communitarian paper, I think it was appropriate to give Andrew Salazar a chance to share his side. However, the article failed to present the “other” voice. Your staff writer did not interview those (who I hope are the entire student body) who were offended by Salazar’s truck. There should be no doubt in the eyes of the students, that this act, regardless of original intent, is seen as unacceptable. Never are the confederate flag or the swastika symbols that should be excused in the name of a prank. Whether or not it was your intention, the absence of such thoughts speaks loudly. Your oversight has deeply hurt the student body and I hope you will take that hurt to heart.
But the bigger picture is not simply the insensitivities of the student newspaper. It's the system our school, and most of our society, operates under. It's a system that allows these actions to be labeled a "prank" because they never meant to be hurtful. This system failes to recongize that racism in the 21st century does not look like segratation, lynchings & other blatant acts as it did in the 60s. Racism today looks like stereoptypes, social segregation & asking a member of a minory race to speak for her/his entire race.
Until we begin to acknowledge that racism still exists today, in ways that maybe don't stand out to those in the majority culture--those who, whether they want to not, benefit from the system--then we have little hope at become a just society.
And for those of us who claim to be Christians, I think APU president Jon Wallace has some wise words. "We can talk about faith and empathy, but sometimes we must just do justice... we live in accountability to each other and to God—that we act with justice, mercy, humility, and love of another kind with each other and with our neighbors."
13 November 2008
from the outside
Our presidential election has captured the attention of the world. And Obama’s victory has captured their hearts. And no better time then now.
Below is an excerpt from a post-election email from my dear South African friend. I think this letter is pretty telling:
Currently, in one of my classes, I’m studying the recent history of U.S. relations in the Middle East and I’m realizing the grave implications of the negative reputation we’ve established in the last 60 years. Our cultural ignorance, inconsiderate national interest, and manipulative politics has put the American people in harm’s way—not to mention the livelihood of our global allies, as well.
When it comes to international relationships, we must approach the world holistically and creatively. We must make the effort to understand the cultures we engage with. And above all, we must value humanity—all humanity. We must grant dignity to all we come in contact with. And that’s where I believe our future president will excel.
The time is now to reshape our image—from the inside and, maybe more importantly, from the outside.
Below is an excerpt from a post-election email from my dear South African friend. I think this letter is pretty telling:
"Obama's election was really cool. It lifted the morale of this country. People from different walks of life, including the most conservative South Africans were talking about it ... the US elections came at a time where we are going through a very interesting time in our politics … I think the world will be a little safer with Obama. The Iranians who Bush labeled as 'axis of evil' have welcomed Obama's election, Hugo Chaves was also raving about Obama's election, the Pope was one of the first people to congratulate him, the German chancellor was pretty excited about Obama's election, she said she knows that the relationship between the EU and the US will not be as fragile as its been under Bush and our very own Nelson Mandela said Obama's election was an inspiration and he believes he'll go on and become a good president. Anyway, the excitement is still evident here. This weekend was a voter registration weekend and a lot of people registered. The whole nation is saying, "Yes, I can!”
Currently, in one of my classes, I’m studying the recent history of U.S. relations in the Middle East and I’m realizing the grave implications of the negative reputation we’ve established in the last 60 years. Our cultural ignorance, inconsiderate national interest, and manipulative politics has put the American people in harm’s way—not to mention the livelihood of our global allies, as well.
When it comes to international relationships, we must approach the world holistically and creatively. We must make the effort to understand the cultures we engage with. And above all, we must value humanity—all humanity. We must grant dignity to all we come in contact with. And that’s where I believe our future president will excel.
The time is now to reshape our image—from the inside and, maybe more importantly, from the outside.
07 November 2008
race in the Race
Did it really happen? Did America finally elect an African-American president? Are we really not going to be governed by an old white male? How comforting. It’s about time.
The polls are showing that race was not a defining factor in the election. And clearly, that is true. But what about for those where race was the defining factor?
What about the skinheads from Tennessee who planned to kill 88 African Americans and eventually our new president? What about those text messages I got telling all white people to report to the cotton fields in the morning, courtesy of President Obama? What about my peers who mourn that we have elected a “terrorist” as our president? What about the student at my university who flew a confederate flag with a swastika in the middle?
Race is still a factor. So how we do continue as a nation united? I’m afraid I don’t have any answers. But I do know we certainly can’t pat ourselves on the back and pretend that now all racism has been eliminated from America. We still have a long way to go.
The polls are showing that race was not a defining factor in the election. And clearly, that is true. But what about for those where race was the defining factor?
What about the skinheads from Tennessee who planned to kill 88 African Americans and eventually our new president? What about those text messages I got telling all white people to report to the cotton fields in the morning, courtesy of President Obama? What about my peers who mourn that we have elected a “terrorist” as our president? What about the student at my university who flew a confederate flag with a swastika in the middle?
Race is still a factor. So how we do continue as a nation united? I’m afraid I don’t have any answers. But I do know we certainly can’t pat ourselves on the back and pretend that now all racism has been eliminated from America. We still have a long way to go.
04 November 2008
a new hope
Whether you voted red or blue, tonight is a proud moment in U.S. history. As I watched President-elect Barack Obama give his acceptance speech, I knew this was a night to remember. For decades to come, this speech will be replayed in classrooms across the world.
I spent part of the night discussing the victory with my politically invested friends. But the best part of the night was spent with those friends, who would, for the first time, have a president that looked like them. And I realized the election of Barack Obama wasn’t as much about the change in policies in America but rather about the change in spirit of America.
Hope is a powerful thing. It’s stronger than any welfare system. It’s more productive than any assembly-line worker. It’s far more trustworthy than any politician. And once lost, it’s a hard thing to get back. But tonight, I saw hope restored. And with a new hope, I see America restored to its people.
I spent part of the night discussing the victory with my politically invested friends. But the best part of the night was spent with those friends, who would, for the first time, have a president that looked like them. And I realized the election of Barack Obama wasn’t as much about the change in policies in America but rather about the change in spirit of America.
Hope is a powerful thing. It’s stronger than any welfare system. It’s more productive than any assembly-line worker. It’s far more trustworthy than any politician. And once lost, it’s a hard thing to get back. But tonight, I saw hope restored. And with a new hope, I see America restored to its people.
01 November 2008
30 October 2008
titles or actions?
The Washington Post wrote a very telling story today on Liberty University students’ campaign for McCain. The article briefly touches on the point that most evangelical, religious right folk originally opposed McCain, in 2000 and in 2008—and with much fervor, too. But now, they are falling in line, again, with the GOP and claiming McCain as their candidate.
Why? Is it just because McCain is Republican? Did the religious conservatives even examine Obama’s stances? Or have they allowed the framing of Obama’s “pro-choice” stance or "socialists" economics to cloud all other possibilities?
But that’s actually not the topic I wish to touch on today. Although it is one that deserves more thought.
What resonated most with me in this article was one of the student activists’ comments. "My goal is not to make laws Christian but to make government as small as possible so you can be as biblically Christian as you so choose," says Meghan Allen.
The role and size of the government is a question I struggle with often in my politics.
In my ideal world, the Christian church and other faith communities would be so active in caring for the poor, seeking justice and helping the oppressed, as Isaiah writes in chapter 1 of Isaiah. However, due to a number of reasons, the Church has departed from that—at least on a grand scale.
So do we put our hope—or at least our efforts—into a system of this world?
Maybe that’s not the ultimate answer. I think I’ve read somewhere that Jesus is the only way. But maybe, in the meantime, we do support a form of government that looks closest to Jesus’ words in Luke 4 and Matthew 25. Maybe we support a government that “brings good news to the poor,” feeds the hungry, clothes the naked and cares for the sick.
Maybe that government won’t do such things in the name of Christ. But maybe that doesn’t matter. Maybe, just maybe, actions mean more than words or titles. Maybe we shouldn’t be scared of the titles given to policies, but instead focus on what those policies look like, and how they line up with the words of the Christ we claim to follow.
Why? Is it just because McCain is Republican? Did the religious conservatives even examine Obama’s stances? Or have they allowed the framing of Obama’s “pro-choice” stance or "socialists" economics to cloud all other possibilities?
But that’s actually not the topic I wish to touch on today. Although it is one that deserves more thought.
What resonated most with me in this article was one of the student activists’ comments. "My goal is not to make laws Christian but to make government as small as possible so you can be as biblically Christian as you so choose," says Meghan Allen.
The role and size of the government is a question I struggle with often in my politics.
In my ideal world, the Christian church and other faith communities would be so active in caring for the poor, seeking justice and helping the oppressed, as Isaiah writes in chapter 1 of Isaiah. However, due to a number of reasons, the Church has departed from that—at least on a grand scale.
So do we put our hope—or at least our efforts—into a system of this world?
Maybe that’s not the ultimate answer. I think I’ve read somewhere that Jesus is the only way. But maybe, in the meantime, we do support a form of government that looks closest to Jesus’ words in Luke 4 and Matthew 25. Maybe we support a government that “brings good news to the poor,” feeds the hungry, clothes the naked and cares for the sick.
Maybe that government won’t do such things in the name of Christ. But maybe that doesn’t matter. Maybe, just maybe, actions mean more than words or titles. Maybe we shouldn’t be scared of the titles given to policies, but instead focus on what those policies look like, and how they line up with the words of the Christ we claim to follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)