As a former editor of the opinion section of my own college newspaper, The Daily Aztec at San Diego State University, I am not surprised that columns such as Chris Surette’s would be submitted.
I received many column submissions even more heinous and despicable than “He Said: The Walk of Shame” in my tenure there, advocating everything from white supremacy to destroying private property to drunk driving and drug use to assault.
But as an editor, it was my job to evaluate the appropriateness and tone of everything from my section, including guest columns and letters to the editor — even comments on our web site — and to remove those that crossed the line from the expression of an opinion to the inappropriate, offensive, and illegal. Which is why I do not understand how his column came to be printed in the first place. Did no one on staff raise an objection?
The most problematic parts of Surette’s column were not the obvious and blatant sexism, though the paper should certainly be taken to task for creating an environment hostile to the college’s female students. The contempt and disrespect Surette suggests toward women simply for having sex should not have been given a megaphone and implied endorsement by a campus publication.
But most disturbing were the multiple implications of sexual assault and rape for the sake of “a good story.” The words “victim,” “robbed of her dignity,” and encouragement to “be ruthless and have no shame” so guys can get a story that’s “humiliating” do not suggest consensual sex or a willing female partner. “Non-consensual sex” is a PC way of saying “rape.” The actual content of his column could easily be read as Surette encouraging his fellow male students to engage in assault, if not worse.
The Mirror, an outlet for student voices, should not be shut down, but the poor judgment of the editors who chose to let this column run is self-evident and a review and revision of the editorial process is pretty much required, at this point.
There isn’t even a disclaimer at the end of the column explaining it’s not endorsed by the paper or university, from what I can tell online. The line of editors and advisors who read and approve content before publication is supposed to screen out things like this, and it failed. Whether that means you need more editors, your editors need some basic workplace harassment training, your writers need to be screened and instructed more carefully, or some combination thereof, something needs to change.
Refusing to publish columns like Surette’s is not censorship. There’s a difference between acknowledging different opinions, perspectives, and arguments in a debate and providing a soapbox for sexism, white supremacy, homophobia, and all the other prejudices, which I’m sure litter your inbox.
There’s a difference between disagreeing with someone and declaring that they are wrong, and advocating for a group’s inherent inferiority. The college newspaper should be a forum for debate and discussion, not a tool that bigots can use to offend and undermine other students.
Disagreement is not harmful; hatred is. Tell those who cry “censorship” when you refuse to give them a platform for their preaching the same thing I do: Go start a LiveJournal. They are not entitled to a place in your paper any more than they are entitled to a spot on national TV. Everyone has a right to free speech; what they don’t have a right to is an audience. An audience has to be earned.
And columns like Surette’s shouldn’t get one.
Sincerely,
Ruthie Kelly
Journalism and
Political Science Senior
San Diego State University
Leave a Reply