In the age of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, it’s easy to get lulled into believing that gender issues are no longer as controversial as those of race or sexual orientation.
It took one 500-word column in The Eagle, American University’s independent student newspaper, to disabuse us of that notion. The opinion piece, written by student columnist Alex Knepper, argued that “date rape” is an “incoherent concept” because a woman who drinks heavily at a party and “walks back to a boy’s room with him is indicating that she wants sex, OK?” (Knepper has since left the paper.)
After the national media appearances, the vandalizing of the student newspaper office and what ABC News described as a “firestorm,” American University students gathered for a forum earlier this month to discuss what has become known as the “date-rape column.”
The forum, titled “Two Sides of the Conversation: The Column Issue,” was moderated by my colleague professor John Watson, who is an expert in journalism ethics and free speech.
I asked Watson via e-mail to recap the discussion at the forum and to address how student publications can best handle ethical issues when they arise. You can read his edited responses below. (Like Watson, I am on the AU faculty, but neither of us have a direct connection with The Eagle, the decision to run the column or Knepper himself.)
Angie Chuang: What advice do you have for student publications that are trying to decide whether to publish something that could be offensive to the college community?
John Watson: They should begin with the presumption that every idea should be allowed into the marketplace of ideas, but recognize that journalism ethics require tempering this freedom with the duty of responsibility to the community they serve. This should be articulated in a written policy that is published routinely in the publication and given to all who provide content. This can forestall the perception of censorship.
These issues are rarely matters of “publish or don’t publish.” There are many ways to publish controversial content responsibly. First and foremost is editing to eliminate unnecessary harm without suppressing an idea that might have some value at its core. Good ideas badly expressed can be gratuitously hurtful.
Diversity of thought and perspective are indispensable, but the news media are part of a community and must be dedicated to serve it with useful information while not unnecessarily harming it. The mere discomfort of an opposing idea is not necessarily harmful. It is an opportunity to solicit and expose better ideas. Dialogues on sensitive subjects are often the most important community service journalists provide.
Is this responsibility heightened when that community is a college or university, as opposed to the general public?
Watson: Because colleges and universities are the prototypical marketplaces of ideas, the denial of admission to any idea threatens a core purpose. It would be tantamount to a denial of educational service. Because the college community is usually a much smaller community than those served by professional publications, the resolve to minimize harm must be weighted more heavily.
People with conflicting ideas are highly likely to brush shoulders literally in the dining hall and library or the quad. Accordingly, a much higher level of civility is required. Contributors must proceed with the understanding that they are talking to and about their neighbors.
Everyone in the community, however, has to realize that their ideas and values are never so sacrosanct or fragile that they cannot endure challenge. They also must be assured that they will be provided access to rebut or defend ideas and values.
Based on the opinions and concerns expressed at the forum, how would you summarize the student body’s response to the column?
Watson: The great bulk of the students who expressed an opinion on the issue — based on the online comments posted on The Eagle website as well as questions and statements made at the forum — were outraged by the apparent insensitivity of the writer and his brutally worded statement about what should constitute sexual consent.
The best articulated comments indicated a belief that the author was contributing to or affirming what was called “the rape culture.” A substantial number of students directed their ire at the newspaper editors who allowed the column to be published and the university administration for not taking stronger action in the aftermath. A tiny minority supported some version of the author’s positions on the issues.
I was gratified to see that, at least at the forum, there was no discernible gender divide on the “rape culture” issue, though there did seem to be a divide on the free speech issue. Males were a bit more heavily nested in that camp. Those who opposed the column’s content expressed a clear preference for denying it publication all together as opposed to something less drastic. A few suggested delaying publication until it could be paired with a rebuttal.
How did you frame issues of free speech and censorship to the students?
Watson: I tried to explain that the fundamental difference between an editor and a censor was a matter of perception. If a person finds the work done by an editor to be legitimate, then it’s merely editing. If not deemed legitimate, the editing is called censoring. I tried to explain that everyone, with the exception of First Amendment fundamentalists, believes some editing/censoring is justified in some circumstances.
If editing is guided by ethics-based, professional guidelines, it would not be censorship. The opening presumption should be that every idea should be allowed an opportunity to enter the marketplace of ideas. That presumption can be overcome only when the expression of an idea violates a fundamental ethical directive, such as “tell truth” or “minimize harm.” This usually does not devolve into a choice of publishing or not publishing, but rather editing or choosing wording that is not unnecessarily threatening or harmful.
