Profane editorial sparks free speech debate

The Rocky Mountain Collegian, the student newspaper at Colorado State University, is drawing fire for a profane four-word editorial published in Friday's edition:



In a letter to readers published on the newspaper's Web site, Editor-in-chief J. David McSwane explained that the seven-member editorial board decided to print the statement "in an effort to highlight the importance of free speech on a college campus. In doing so, the editorial board and I realized the statement was controversial and unpopular among some students and community members."

"As local and national media will inevitably jump on this controversy, I strongly urge the university community to try and understand that the intentions of the students on staff, including me, were not to cause harm, but rather to reinforce the importance of free speech at our great institution. My staff and I are extremely proud to be CSU students and members of this amazing community, and it is my sincere hope that our readers understand our intentions were not malicious."

Colorado State University President Larry Edward Penley issued a statement in response to the editorial in the student newspaper, which is self-funded and not supported by student fees:

"While student journalists enjoy all the privileges and protections of the First Amendment, they must also accept full responsibility for the choices they make. Members of a university community ought to be expected to communicate civilly and rationally and to make thoughtful arguments in support of even unpopular viewpoints. I am disappointed that the Collegian's recent editorial choices do not reflect the expectations we have of our student journalists nor the standards that are clearly articulated by student media policies. I also have every expectation that the readers of the Collegian will make their viewpoints known to the editor and the Board of Student Communications, which serves as the newspaper's publisher, and that ultimately, the newspaper will answer to its readers."

The university's press release notes that "Colorado State, as a state institution, is prohibited by law from censoring or regulating the content of its student media publication." It invites readers to "express their concerns to the student editor, J. David McSwane - editor@collegian.com - who has editorial control over the newspaper’s content, and the Board of Student Communications, which hires and, if necessary, removes student editors from office."

According to an article in The Coloradoan, advertisers pulled $30,000 worth of advertising in response to the editorial, prompting the newsroom to slash student employee pay and other budgets by 10 percent.

The incident was also covered by The Rocky Mountain News, Fox News, Channel 7 News and other media outlets.

What do you think of The Collegian's actions? Would your newspaper print an editorial like that or do you think the paper went too far? Is this free speech or just profanity?

U of Virginia paper faces cartoon controversy

The Cavalier Daily, the student newspaper at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, apologized Thursday for publishing a controversial comic strip after more than 100 students protested against the cartoon outside the newspaper office.

“We apologize to the entire university community for the poor editorial judgment exercised in running a comic that is so clearly inappropriate and hurtful,” the newspaper’s wrote in an editorial titled “Worth 1,000 Words” that ran in Thursday’s edition.

Though unfortunate, the situation offers some important lessons on how student newspapers should handle controversial content.

The comic, “Quirksmith,” was drawn by Cavalier Daily Graphics Editor Grant Woolard. Captioned “Ethiopian Food Fight,” the comic depicted emaciated black men dressed in loincloths fighting each other for food.

“We apologize to the entire University community for the poor editorial judgment exercised in running a comic that is so clearly inappropriate and hurtful,” the editorial said. “Understandably, the comic upset and offended members of the community who thought it unfairly depicted victims of horrible tragedy as savage and violent -- reducing starving people to a punch line.”

The cartoon was removed from the newspaper’s Web site.

The food fight cartoon is one of several by Woolard to spark controversy. The protesting students also cited another recent cartoon
depicting Thomas Jefferson's slave Sally Hemings sitting on a bed while Jefferson stands near her with a whip in his hand. The text read "Thomas, could we try role-play for a change?"

In 2006, the paper and the university administration received nearly 2,000 letters from the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and individuals from around the country in response to two Woolard comics seen as anti-Christian, according to an article that ran in the Cavalier Daily on Sept. 11, 2006.

One, titled "Christ on a Cartesian Plane," depicted the crucifixion with a parabolic graph superimposed on the figure of Christ. In another, titled "A Nativity Ob-scene," the Virgin Mary and Joseph have a conversation about an "immaculately transmitted" rash.

Those cartoons were removed from the newspaper's Web site. In their places is this message from Woolard:

“Dear Readers,

The sole intent of my comic strip is to present situations that provoke thought and amusement. As this comic did not achieve that goal, I have requested that it be taken down from the Cavalier Daily website.

I apologize for the offense that this comic has produced.

Sincerely,
Grant Woolard”

Some students have asked that Woolard be removed as graphics editor.

The Sept. 6 editorial described the newspaper’s policy on censorship, which instructs editors to ask themselves a series of questions: "First, does the author truthfully depict a verifiable historical or contemporary situation? If not, and the context of the work is creative, we ask two more questions. Does the author make a serious, intentional point, the censoring of which would constitute viewpoint discrimination? Also, does the author criticize or make light of a group of people for any reason other than their own opinions or actions?"

After publishing the cartoon, the editors decided the comic “clearly violates the third criterion,” the editorial said.

An article about the protest explained that all cartoons are reviewed by the graphics editor, the operations manager and the editor-in-chief before going to print.
Editor-in-chief Herb Ladley was quoted in the article as saying when he first saw the comic, his reaction "was that it would be controversial," but said he "didn't consider it in light of the current comic policy." (A note at the end of the story explains that Ladley did not edit the story since he was quoted in it.)

“Sometimes late at night, when our deadline is pending, editors make hasty decisions without considering all the consequences,” the editorial said.

The editorial apologizing for the cartoon chastizes students for the protest.

“On Tuesday evening, before dozens of students decided to occupy the offices of The Cavalier Daily in protest, we helped to plan a public forum in which members of the community could come and learn more about the paper's editorial process and how decisions are made,” the editorial said.

“An open forum, where the public can express their concerns and hear from the parties involved, is in this case the best way to incorporate the community into the discussion. Intimidation is not. Blocking the entrances and exits of The Cavalier Daily offices, whether in protest or not, erodes any hope of productive discussion.”

What do you think about the way The Cavalier Daily handled this situation? Have you faced similar challenges? Post a comment here. We’d also love to hear from Cavalier Daily staffers if they’d like to share more about the cartoon controversy.