The Issue: College newspapers try satire
What we think: Inappropriate content unacceptable
On Feb. 7, Central Connecticut State University's student newspaper, The Recorder, ran an opinions piece titled, "Rape Only Hurts If You Fight It." The article, written by then-opinions editor John Petroski, attempted to take a satirical pro-rape stance in an effort to poke fun at sensational media. Needless to say, he failed.
In the article, Petroski makes several inappropriate and inexcusable claims about rape, going as far as to say, "If it weren't for rape, how would [ugly women] ever know the joy of intercourse with a man who isn't drunk?" The article went on with similar offensive and despicable comments. The day after the article was published, the campus was up in arms, and rightfully so.
Petroski issued an apology, saying, "I wasn't writing this to try and hurt people though … I was trying to point out that people don't give a damn about anything in a paper besides something they can rally around. It looks like I succeeded, especially with our front page." The front page of the issue contained a story about students losing their Social Security numbers.
But this is not the first time this year that college newspapers have faced problems of offensive journalism.
On Nov. 29, 2006, The Dartmouth Review ran a picture on its front page of a Native American holding a scalp with the headline, "The Natives Are Getting Restless."
Last year, Princeton's student newspaper, The Daily Princetonian, ran an op-ed piece in its yearly "joke" issue. The piece, written in broken English, made fun of Princeton applicant "Jian Li" who wrote a complaint to the school asserting he was rejected because of his race. The article, a letter by "Lian Ji," was a continuous string of offensive dialogue, such as, "I the super smart Asian. Princeton the super dumb college, not accept me. I get angry and file a federal civil rights complaint against Princeton for rejecting my application for admission."
College newspapers, especially those which are independent from their respective universities, have a responsibility to convey their ideas in an appropriate manner. These newspapers must remember the students they are serving and keep their best interests in mind. They also must be held accountable for their mistakes.
Petroski was fired as a result of his op-ed piece, but remains on the staff. Mark Rowan, the editor-in-chief, remains in his position. This is unacceptable. The editor-in-chief is responsible for approving all content in his or her newspaper, and the fact that Rowan published this article reflects poorly on him as an editor.
Satire and humor can be tremendously effective tools in getting ideas across and sparking dialogue (just look at Jonathon Swift's "A Modest Proposal"). But they are only effective when they do not exclude individuals, groups, or people. This is where Petroski and his editors failed.
2008 Woodie Awards
