The last few semesters involving The Daily have been frustrating ones. We have seen stories interpreted as racist, sexist, ageist and encouraging rape. Peoples being offended have persuaded our newspaper to be a little more conservative and hold a meeting before this semester under the name “Diversity Training.”
The way we as a campus have reacted to the “sensational” columns is where we are erring. This response is not isolated to OU; the general sentiment is representative of our entire nation. People far and wide have requested, nay, demanded, apologies. We saw it last semester, and we are seeing it again this semester.
Requiring an apology in mass and saying, “Just don’t ever do it again,” is wrong; it limits debate and encourages ignorance — something that will never successfully combat bad ideology.
If the columnist truly did say something offensive that was unintentional then, yes, an apology should be issued. But an American should never have to apologize for holding an opinion that is not deemed correct by the masses.
In America, we have nearly unconditional free speech; this is especially true on a college campus. If someone has a strong but offensive conviction and wants to stand in the South Oval with a sign proclaiming this belief, they could — even should. Others could peacefully protest in the hopes of inspiring debate and learning.
One might argue that The Daily is representing OU and can therefore justify a bit of censorship to keep a good image. This is a misguided notion. Yes, The Daily is representing the university, but in the United States a university is the place where free speech is most valued. Censoring ideas from the school paper is jeopardizing the image of higher-education in America, not the other way around.
It would be a testament to our university’s dedication to creating an environment that valued the learning and growth of its students enough to let me run a column stating the inferiority of a race, gender or religion if I truly did believe it. Surely there are those on our campus holding similar sentiments, and by silencing their opinions on the grounds of “general-consensus,” we deny them the opportunity to grow and learn.
We’ve had free speech for so long we don’t understand how powerful of a right it is and with what ferocity it should be exercised, defended and cherished. Most people through the ages never had free speech. Punishment is too often the consequence of thinking differently.
We also don’t understand how easily it can be taken away. Time after time governments have gone to do terrible things by the slow and surreptitious removal of the rights of its citizens. Because it has happened so many times it is ignorant to believe America is above this fate. Patriot Act?
The instant people being offended turns into the censoring of our “unacceptable” beliefs, like they are in The Daily, we lose a voice of dissent, and in many instances throughout history the voice of dissent has been right. Most Americans were offended and didn’t agree when people starting calling for racial equality.
We need the voice of dissent; it is why we have progressed so much. While offending billions throughout the ages, it also has educated people about what might be wrong with society and inspired people to reconsider their approach to life.
It is imperative we completely accept the free exchange of beliefs, no matter how wrong or evil they are or seem to be. We must not fear offensive ideas. The bad ones will die on there own, but the good ones will change the world. By censoring one we censor the other.
Who are we to accuse someone who thinks differently than us as wrong? Our society is changing every day. Things we accept now we didn’t before, and things we accepted before are no longer tolerable. We cannot pretend we have life figured out and use this fallacy as an acceptable excuse to practice censorship. The one thing we can do is keep the discussion open and let voices be heard. Enforcing silence helps no one.
To respond with educated posts aimed to inspire is wonderful, but to request The Daily, or any other organization, to censor or fire their writers, and for them to oblige, is inappropriate and dangerous.
Don’t be afraid of people who offend or seem ignorant, and please don’t look to censor their opinions. All bad ideas will eventually collapse on their own if we allow them to be voiced. If we don’t, we are encouraging ignorance, discouraging change and doomed to live out the mistakes we are making today rather than reassess our values. And to the offenders, don’t be afraid to say what you believe. You might be ridiculed and burned in effigy, but you might also be right.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
mustafa 2 years, 3 months ago
Where is the apology from you clowns for using profanity on the pages of our newspaper while telling us to watch our mouths?
gunfighter 2 years, 3 months ago
Great article, Jordan. I agree with you 100%.
William 2 years, 3 months ago
This article is spot on. This is your best work yet. Great job.
Jones101 2 years, 3 months ago
Have you read Abby Williamson's article today...
COLUMN: Majorities must learn from minorities by Abby Williamson
mythman 2 years, 3 months ago
I, for one, encourage people to write whatever they want.
How else would we know who the jerks are?
philosophymajor 2 years, 3 months ago
Agreed. Good article. Writers have no obligation to accomodate to the sensibilities of its readership-- the curbing of free speech could only limit the educational potentital of our university. Let the dumb columns be lampooned into erasure, don't browbeat them into submission.
sooner_born 2 years, 3 months ago
The author confuses the legal premise of free speech with the notion of journalistic responsibility.
Certainly free speech (and free press) are the bedrock of our democracy. However, just because one can say something doesn't mean one should. If the staff of the OU Daily wants to write what many believe to be opinions with racist or sexist overtones, on their own forum, then fine. The problem arises when the staff of The Daily print such messages in our newspaper.
It seems crass for the author to defend one's freedom to depict rape in a cartoon or stereotype the dangers of African Americans. If the staff of The Daily wants to write about these topics, then fine, just find a more suitable forum than the student newspaper.
dio 2 years, 3 months ago
You are welcome leimapapa. I recommend people to read your comments.
dio 2 years, 3 months ago
Look, if this paper is the "student voice" then it has to balance its columns and let people react to them, and not only publish extreme far-right garbage in the name of every student on campus then censor the comments.
Remember the daily ID/pro-choice/evangelist columns of the past semesters? Each semester there was only one, maybe two guys, in the opinion team who were not ultra-conservative retards and they were rarely opposing the insanities written here. The president of the OU intelligent design club was writing here weekly with no opposition AT ALL during the Darwin 2009 events. There was invited columns of "professors" who were spitting their hate of atheism and nobody could say anything against that. Last December, there was a wave of "fixed news"-inspired climate skeptics unleashing torrents of absurdities with nobody but the commentators to oppose them. During the presidential elections, vice-president Joe Biden was labeled a RACIST by a recurrent columnist named Joe Hunt, and that was only the tip of the iceberg. And I am not even mentioning the comment editors of this time who literally CENSORED any non-Aryan comments. By the way, did anyone take a look at the 2003 opinion columns during the patriotic fever?
It is not just the opinion page that has to be balanced, the rest of the OU Daily should be as well. A few years ago, a local christian guru (priest) had free access to page 3. He pretended to report "facts" such as having sex before (a christian) marriage makes you dumber and poorer...
leimapapa 2 years, 3 months ago
dio is adorable when he gets angry. It's like he really believes that using colorful adjectives and quotation marks validates his views. Just precious.
I apologize in advance. Trolling the opinion column is like a drug to me now.
johnchimpo 2 years, 3 months ago
I couldn't agree more Jordan.
sooner_born, what do you mean that these sorts of messages shouldn't be printed in OUr paper. You do realize that the Oklahoma Daily is funded neither by the University nor the Journalism Department; it is the Independent Student Voice. What forum would you consider for these types of messages? Surely this newspaper reaches the widest potential audience consisting of most students, while at the same time being easily accessible to those who wish to make their voice heard. Try getting your story on a local tv station, or CNN, or the Daily Oklahoman. Still those sources do not reach nearly the student readership that our paper attains. Perhaps the only place that could truly overshadow our own paper for readers' benefit would be social networking such as Facebook, and that is marred in difficulty. Facebook is cluttered with status updates, photos, farm games, and relationship changes. It'd be like trying to find a singular tree in a forest of similar trees. No, we should accept our paper the way it is, flawed as it may be in some respects. Sure the writing is sometimes crass, or unrefined, and sometimes broaches subjects which the popular media would not, but student newspapers should live on the edge of acceptability because they are the voice of a revolving, tireless generation. If you ever get a chance pick up a copy of the Norman Transcript and read it; then never do so again, because you'll have seen what bad journalism is really like.