The student body has been buzzing over the controversy spurred by last week’s “He Said” article. Protestors and editors met on Monday evening in an attempt to better understand the role that The Mirror plays at Fairfield.
The article, written by Chris Surette ’10, inspired a protest outside of The Mirror office that was attended by several members of the University community. Certain language to describe the topic of “the walk of shame” was deemed inappropriate by those in attendance.
Leaders of the protest were invited to attend an Editoral Board meeting and present their concerns and requests formally to the Editorial staff. Sarah Gatti ’10 spoke on behalf of the organizers of the protest. Representing The Mirror were Tom Cleary ’10, Editor in Chief; Lily Norton ’10, Executive Editor; Chris Simmons ’10, Managing Editor; and Veronica Florentino ’10, Commentary Editor. Students and faculty were also invited to attend the meeting and were able to comment after the formal discussion, which was facilitated by Joe Defeo, director of Living and Learning.
Both parties involved expressed a desire to find common ground and to move The Mirror forward in a positive direction. A decision was made not to include a stage or microphone so as to keep the meeting in a traditional Editorial Board meeting format.
Gatti began by explaining how the protest initially began and how it escalated. She then pinpointed the overall concern of the group, saying, “This space in our student newspaper is condoning and glorifying activity that is counter-intuitive to the student body and really harmful and painful to people who have been involved.”
Suggestions for how the group feels The Mirror should “re-frame” the space of the column were also offered by Gatti on behalf of the protesters. These suggestions included creating accountability for the writers involved, so the column no longer presents the vague, stereotypical characters of “He Said” and “She Said.” She also suggested that The Mirror ensure an improvement of the satire so that the intention is more obvious, and that inflammatory language be removed from all future articles.
“This is one of the first places where [students] get information about what it means to be a man and a woman on this campus, and I think that we have to honor that,” said Gatti. “Kudos to you for making something that people are reading. Now the challenge is making something that they read, and that’s still controversial, but that really engages what’s actually happening here…Let’s talk about what’s actually up, and let’s do it respectfully,” she said.
Gatti also said that these suggestions were applicable to the “She Said” column as well. “This idea that even the women on this campus ‘have no sympathy…’ condones the male action! …Are we not holding the men accountable for being predators? We are all accountable. You can’t blame the victim in this,” said Gatti.
The Editorial Board then had the opportunity to speak about not only their intent, but also about their roles as editors in light of the situation. Cleary expressed that the protest urged the staff to take a critical look at a column that has been continued in The Mirror as a tradition, not necessarily as the result of an informed look at what the student body wants from the paper.
“We have not been taking this lightly. We’ve definitely spent a lot of time considering this and I think that’s a good thing,” Cleary said. “We’ve had a chance to sit down and say, why is ‘He Said/She Said’ in the paper? It’s something that’s been a tradition, good or bad, and we just assumed that it’s something that’s in our paper…and we keep it going in the same way it’s been going, which is not a good thing to do.”
Florentino added that it is hard to gauge what the student body is looking for in a “He Said,” reminding participants that after complaints of Dan Stanczyk ’08 being too “offensive,” the less inflammatory Josh Kenney ’09 was deemed “not offensive enough” by a majority of students.
Gatti reiterated that the main problem with the column is that it is an arena specifically designed for students to play the role of a stereotypical and offensive character.
“It’s ultimately that the paper controls the space that the writers live in. So if you re-frame the space where the writers live, you take out that piece, but you still allow the students to talk about hot-button issues,” said Gatti.
Simmons discussed how “He Said” Chris Surette ’10 has been taking accountability for his words. Simmons also expressed a desire for open communication with anyone who has an issue with the content or the editorial process of The Mirror, noting that protests and personal attacks against Surette and the paper are not the most effective way to address such problems.
Shawne Lomauro ’11, who played a large role in starting the protest, responded that there have also been personal attacks against her on The Mirror’s website, and that she has tried to ensure that nobody in her group made such attacks against anyone.
“We made it very known in our protest that this is about the writing, not the writer. I am not in charge of the autonomy of other human beings, but I know that in my space, we created a calm and orderly space in which people could voice how they were feeling,” said Lomauro.
With that, and words of gratitude from both sides, the floor was open to audience questions and commentary.
Defeo reminded onlookers who wished to speak that comments should be kept respectful rather than argumentative. Many students and faculty voiced discontent with The Mirror for allowing the content to be published.
“I can’t speak for the people who have now put this forward today, but this will not end here. We will be watching you. Not a threat, but please, please, listen to your students,” said a female member of the senior class, who asked not to be named.
Dan Leitao ’11 asked both the protesters and the editors if there was still a place in the paper for humor and lighthearted entertainment.
“So are you suggesting that rape is funny?” Lomauro interrupted.
“I don’t think that ‘He Said’ has anything to do about rape, I don’t think he ever said that, and I think it’s shortsighted to say that, but I don’t want this to become a personal bickering war,” replied Leitao.
Both sides acknowledge that the content of the article is undoubtedly controversial, but that debating content was not the objective of the meeting. The Editorial staff noted that a formal announcement of how they would proceed with the issue would be made clear in this week’s issue, and anyone who wishes to discuss anything with the editors is invited to come to The Mirror office individually or speak at next week’s Board meeting.
On Tuesday, the protesters published what they called “The Broken Mirror,” a handout in which they wrote small articles detailing their stance on the issue. No names were attributed to the handout. While all issues covered in the meeting will be strongly considered by The Mirror staff, the Editorial Board has remained consistent in the stance that the decision to include or remove any content from anywhere in the paper falls on them as an independent newspaper.
“That line has to be determined by us. Whether or not we made a mistake is something that we have to decide. What the line is has to be something we set as a free, independent press,” said Cleary. “I’m not saying that what we said was right, and I’m not saying that what we said was wrong, but we have a responsibility to print something that is positive and that follows our journalistic ethics, follows our code of ethics and our code of procedure, and that is where it should be determined if it was right or wrong.”
Leave a Reply