As a "former editor":http://feralboy.com/medium/ for the fishwrapper that was "The Medium":http://themedium.net/ (the "independant" campus paper; site currently down / "slashdotted":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdotted / "farked":http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=farked), I always sit up and take notice whenever they cause outrage or "ire" (a favorite word used by the "legitimate" "Daily Targum":http://www.dailytargum.com/). Last year it was sort of indirect heat, as they published "racist personal ads":http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_111303_rutgerspaper.html. One of the tenets of the paper was to publish whatever anyone sent in... 1st Amendment and all of that.
Last week they hit a new kind of problem. They put a cartoon on the front page (archived "here":http://feralboy.com/medium/42104.pdf for posterity) depicting a Jew in a carnival dunk tank-like setting, but over a kitchen oven instead of a water tank, and the tagline "Knock a Jew in the oven! Three throws for one dollar! Really! No, REALLY!" Understandably, this set off a firestorm of protests, from the "ADL":http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/24/education/24rutgers.html?ex=1083643200&en=51da7be1cbc34948&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1 on down to the "school administration":http://www.president.rutgers.edu/medium.shtml. People want to know how they're going to get rid of this dastardly evil publication, which is _partially_ funded by _(gasp)_ student tuition and fees!
The first I even heard about this was I checked my webmaster account for this domain over the weekend and had about 40 new messages from various former editors and writers, talking about what happened and what the response should be. Sounds like there's going to be an ad run in the Targum explaining the Medium's position (some wiseasses insisted that the ad include "buttfuck" in it). The general gist of the email discussions is summed up fairly well "here":http://fasterfasterfaster.com/medium.html, and I'm also going to include a poignant email from one of the former editors below:
bq.. It may or may not be that current editors write and publish the things they do for the same reasons we did. But let's not miss the gist of the message, Nancy makes a good point. It has folks, been (oh shit) more than 15 years since we let the Medium be just that - a true medium for anyone to be able to publish what they wanted, often to perhaps test out whether freedom of speech and _expression really existed for us, and if so to what extent it existed. We ran news, ran garbage, had fun, and tested limits in order to determine if we really did have the freedom to publish what we wanted to, even if some found the content offensive.
I learned something, and I think we all did, about a concept that is intrinsically American to it's core. It's one thing to be told you have "free speech", and another to try and find out if it's true. Hell, I recall us running things WE disagreed with that were sent in by students, the point being that we were not going to be censored, nor would we censor others.
In the years since, America has changed. America in 2004 reminds me an awful lot of what America may have looked like in 1955. Ashcroft looks and sounds like they just dusted him off and wound him back up.
When Nancy says "Making waves reminds people we live in an ocean" she is right. And at this point in our history I really think that people not only don't want to make waves, their fears drive them to beat wave-makers into silence.
The great, great irony about all of this, is that of all the Medium alum I know, none are people I would call racist, homophobic, or any other sort of bigot. My guess is that the current Medium staff did not truly find the cartoon funny or clever, but probably repugnant. I have no reason to believe that junior KKK members suddenly decided to join their school paper. That is not the way such groups have ever operated. The judgement call to run the piece was a bad call, but not because it might arouse ire, or {shudder} cause some people to actually think. It was a bad call because it was probably not given a whole hell of a lot of consideration before being run. As I recall, making decisions, and sometimes not-the-best choices, was how we learned and grew as students and individuals. We were in a place that functioned on many levels as a SCHOOL.
This is the best thing to happen in years - the issue is out there, it's publicized and it's real. One of the basic tenets of out wonderful constitution being tested in the real world. and this test is a biggie. I want to see The Medium survive, and for the right reasons. BUT if the paper gets canned THAT says something too, about RU, the reflected values of our current governance, and about the depth of the action(s) we may need to undertake in order to reclaim our freedoms. Maybe it's time for a loud wake-up call, and maybe this issue is it.
There is certainly no ignoring that the current administration includes people SO conservative, I believe they are radical (think "Ashcroft"). Their presence may really reflect not only the Supreme court's hubris, but actually what huge numbers of Americans hold as core values and beliefs. To believe that such would not extend through the fabric of our system, right through the BOG and RU would be silly.
In a similar vein, I wonder how much cash RU is afraid of losing if the Medium is NOT yanked? Cash comes from many places, and one of them is alumni donations and gifts. There are likely an awful lot of pissed off alum out there with closed checkbooks. Maybe some checks sent directly to Old Queens in support of the the University continuing the tradition of a free and independent paper (hell, call it The Medium) would help.
The last point I want to hit, is that any letter or ad run in the Target, um, Targum be signed off on by as many of us as possible, including our degrees and accomplishments. Among the crop of Medium alum I know, I count at least one lawyer (yes, Jay I do mean you), a couple doctorates, at least one person who completed the Livingston College Honors Program, a Paul Robeson Honors Scholar, and without exception a group of people who has been quite successful in their rather mainstream careers and in contributing to society. How odd for what seems to be portrayed as a bunch of burn-out miscreants.
p. As someone with Jewish grandparents, I think the cartoon was pretty stupid to run, but I'm way more concerned with free speech being recognized and protected in this country. Heck, when I was an editor we did plenty of stupid shit too... and it got us into trouble in our own way. One issue we published a picture of *ahem* "someone's" cock wrapped up in Christmas decorations right next to a "Pizza Hut":http://feralboy.com/log/archives/000005/ ad. Needless to say, they dropped us from future advertising, costing us about $3k for that semester. Our funding from the school was a pittance; most of the money to print each week came from advertising.
My long rambling point is that free speech is under fire in this country from the Religious Right. Issues ranging from "Howard Stern":http://feralboy.com/log/archives/000900/ to "teaching evolution in schools":http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4677867/ to the "right to make porn movies":http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0404/16.porn.html have gradually been coming under attack from "Ashcroft":http://jwz.livejournal.com/209398.html and his cronies. The whole point of free speech (especially in the case of humor/satire) is that it's protected, and you can't throw that out the window in case _you don't happen to agree with the message_! If The Medium does somehow get shut down, it's a dangerous precedent to be set, as we've already seen what happens when you "close down media outlets":http://www.utcecho.com/news/2004/04/02/Editorial/U.Closing.Iraq.Newspaper.Violates.Democractic.Principles-648354.shtml that don't fit into your ideological scope.
In addition to putting my name on the Targum/Star Ledger/whatever ads, I think I'll try and write some letters to the editor, too. My writing isn't the best, but hopefully I can convey what needs to be said.
*Update:* Hmm.. maybe I shouldn't sign on. Here's a well-reasoned argument from someone else on the CC'd email list:
bq.. Although I am clearly out of sync with most of the contributors to this thread, I still feel it may be useful for me to explain not only why I cannot sign onto this letter, but why I am offended by its tone.
As I have previously stated, I would be happy to join in an expression of support for the Medium in opposition to any threat to its right of free expression. However, I believe that this letter, rather then express support, attempts to rationalize something that should not be rationalized.
Had the Medium printed an article from a Holocaust denier, or even a piece from an outright not seek synthesizer, it would no doubt have had the same reaction from Hillel _[ed. the campus Jewish organization]_ and the Administration. If that had happened, I would still believe that the Medium had a 1st Amendment right to print such an article, and would have felt that the issue was clear..
In this case, the Medium has printed a cartoon which is blatantly offensive. The letter, rather than acknowledge the offensive content, attempts to claim that the offense was not meant because it was "satirical" and an attempt to discuss an otherwise taboo subject. This changes the discussion from defending the First Amendment right to publish something offensive to an attempt to justify the offensive utterance.
From the perspective of the readership, publication of this cartoon is the equivalent to printing an endorsement of anti-Semitism. If the Medium had published a cartoon showing "little Sambo" or had published a cartoon showing elephant dung on an image of the Virgin Mary, it would have been equally offensive. Such publication is still protected, but I would not rationalize it why saying that it was an attempt to address an otherwise taboo subject.
Some opinions should not be raised in the context of a newspaper. Gratuitous insults to religious or ethnic groups, pornography "without redeeming social significance", and glorification of genocide are inappropriate. Even though a newspaper has an absolute right to express such opinions, it is, to put it mildly, a violation of community standards of decency to do so. I ask the signers of this letter if they would make the same defense of a cartoon that advocated mass rape, or the reinstitution of slavery. These are also taboo subjects. Serious political discussion is or should be always permitted. However, an attempt to justify a plainly offensive utterance on the grounds that it is seeking to break a taboo on discussion is, at best, a cop-out rationalization.
Quite bluntly, I think the publication of the cartoon raises a serious question as to whether or not the Medium does harbor anti-Semitism. To be certain, the question would be raised as to whether or not the Medium was racist if it had published a cartoon endorsing slavery of African-Americans, and the question would be valid. If I was a member of Hillel, I would respond exactly as they are responding, and I believe it to be an appropriate response.
p. Well, there you have it.
*Update #2:* Per request, here a reply from Nancy Loughlin to the above email. Fucking hilarious.
bq.. Okay.
I could not disagree with Mr. Henner more on this subject and here it is...
I don't care what the Medium's intent was in publishing the cartoon. And you know what, it doesn't matter a damn. The cartoon isn't the show here, folks. It's the audience. A serpent has just slithered into the garden. Some grab the hoe and start swinging. Others, embrace the serpent (and are banished from Eden). But then, there is Mr. Henner.
Forgive me, but I don't know you apart from your e-mail so you may want to put on a rain slicker.
Mr. Henner is the ACLU intellectual turned Indiana Jones. He will embrace the turd du jour but simultaneously hold his nose and crack the whip. Now THAT is the cop out.
Regardless of the Medium's intent, they have inadvertently lobbed a spear at the heart of the inconsistent, hypocitical, board-up-its-ass sensibility that enforces a hieracrchy of historic abominations. The most amusing paradox is that Mr. Henner's arguments effectively shut down discourse via intimidation. "Look, I'll defend you but call you an asshole in the process." Gee. Supporting speech while simultaneously stomping it. Do you think anyone will notice?
Folks, if the letter is revised to denounce the "judgment" of the Medium (a supreme duck for cover) while claiming to stand for some ivory tower higher virtue of free speech, count me out. I have signed enough ACLU petitions to last me a lifetime and frankly, this Skokie bumper sticker peeled off the VW bus long ago. If we take out the discussion on taboo, Mark's beautiful letter (the SAT words could be toned down) loses its art, it loses its edge, and it loses its significance... Therefore, why bother? As for me, when it comes to the standard liberal argument "I don't agree with what you said but I will fight like hell to defend your right to say it," I'm going to buttfuck that rainbow until it craps Skittles.
This is where I stand.
Nancy
p. "..buttfuck that rainbow until it craps Skittles"? Priceless.
*Update #3:* Robin (former editor) also "weighs in":http://www.firepile.com/robin/archives/000128.html.
*Update #4:* The next issue (which includes an apology to the Rutgers community) is out, and archived "here":http://feralboy.com/medium/42804.pdf
Ok, I accept that things are how they are. I accept that they are this way because of my actions. I accept that nobody can change things except me. And I accept that stressing about things other than what I can change is completely counter-productive.
There is a principle in Taoism called _wu wei_, which means "non-doing". Imagine a small stream. A leaf in the stream cannot fight the current; that would be unnatural. Rather, let the current carry you where it may. In the words of Chuang Tzu, I must learn "detachment, forgetfulness of results, and abandonment of all hope of profit." I must learn that my actions henceforth should be appropriate for their time and place. I cannot exercise willfull control over my environment, but instead trust my thoughts and emotions to guide me.