Editor:

The joke issues of The Student Life over the last 3 semesters are indefensible examples of what void develops in the absence of all journalistic integrity. Meagan Purn’s letter from the editor and editorial board both attempted to defend these joke issues in last week’s TSL . What follows is a critique of those defenses.

Purn asserted, "Our joke issue across the board had nothing to do with specific people; it had everything to do with what they stood for." This seems hard to believe in light of the following selections, taken from TSL joke issues:

1) " Junior Class Representative Dan Silberstein ’00 expressed concern that people would hate him because he is ugly, and that it would interfere with the elections that already happened.."

2) " TSL will print all profane letters, but will not print letters from assholes like Conor Friedersdorf."

3) "Commissioner of Community Affairs Anbinh Phan expressed her desire that a special sub-committee be formed to remove the eight-foot long pole that has been thoroughly lodged in her asshole."

4) "After his introductory comments, Commisioner of Residence Halls and Food Brian Andrews ‘01 bitched about why everyone hates him. "Why does everyone think I’m such a fuckin’ tool?" he yelled to the Senate. There was no response from the group. "Well," said an anonymous senate member, "it could be the fact that you are a preppy fuck, or maybe because you are the tool of Aramark, or maybe its just because you, well, you kind of are one." Andrews was livid, claiming that one day he was going to be President and he would make them all pay. Good luck, toolbox."

The Editorial Board asserted, "As per Pomona’s Harassment Policy, the statements were not ‘spoken solely to degrade or humiliate.’" Then, pray tell, why were they spoken? Are any of these examples issue oriented in any way? How do they represent an attempt at satire that aims at a "parody of serious issues," as Ms. Purn claimed? Even if some of these excerpts could possibly be construed as obtuse references to actual events (and this can’t even be said for all of them), it is clear that the intent is not to convey a substantive message. The intent is to ridicule. Otherwise, substantive issues would have been explicitly mentioned, or at least firmly alluded to.

And these are but a small sampling of TSL’s dirty laundry. At the conclusion of Jeff Gernes’ tenure as Editor in Chief, TSL went so far as to publish a hate list, a straight up list of people that an anonymous group of TSL staffers hated, complete with numerical values assigned to delineate how much hate each person was allocated. I invite a defense of that list on the grounds of journalistic integrity.

While comedy "isn’t always easy or pretty," it can always be substantive. Personal attacks as ends in themselves are not acceptable content in a newspaper run in part on the student fees of those being attacked. The Student Alternative demonstrated that personal attacks that lack any substance are not necessary to effective humor or satire.

Ed board asserts, "As the newspaper of record at Pomona College, we must be permitted to express unfavorable and controversial opinions without fear of retribution. Without this freedom of speech we cannot be expected to adequately perform our duties as a journalistic organization."

The sad thing is that no one does expect TSL "to adequately perform [its] duties as a journalistic organization."

Ms. Purn and Editorial Board, I invite your response.

Sincerely,

Conor Friedersdorf

Editor:

I think that the way you guys have been treating my boys Danny, Robi, and Conor is despicable. How could you have been so unfair to them? I used to enjoy Conor’s contributions to The Student Life (who can forget the hilarious "Random Club" article or his informative "By the Numbers" column?), but now it seems like all he can do is write letters to the Editor? Why is this? I want Conor to start writing articles again in The Student Life . As we can tell from his hilarious publication The Student Alternative , Conor is a singularly funny and extraordinary individual capable of producing a weekly humor rag all by himself. And let’s not forget, Conor has a serious side as well. I’ve enjoyed his column in the Collage for so long I can hardly remember. Covering a wide range of national and international issues it seems that no topic is too big for Conor to tackle. Let’s see Conor back where he belongs, in the pages of The Student Life .

Also, as a huge paintball fan, I could never thank Dan Silbertstein enough for getting Senate to ante up $1,200 for our upcoming trip! I’m glad somebody finally stuck it to those POSA and KSPC jerks who are always trying to get money for their stupid Art shows and concerts that nobody goes to anyway. I mean like, Art? Are you serious? Who needs that shit?

I also agree that there should be an organization to oversee those rampant assbastards that make up The Student Life Editorial Board. I question their journalistic integrity and also how integrious their journalism is. I think a committee should be formed that oversees ALL PRINT MEDIA, so those few fascists that dominate the Ed Board can’t run willy-nilly through the sea of discontent that is this loyal TSL reader.

Sincerely,

Patrick Resing ’01

Editor:

We find it ironic that after stating, "freedom of expression and press freedom are privileges," in your October 1, 1999 Editorial Board, you continue to act as if you have been given free reign to print whatever you like. Continuing, the editorial says, "Our student newspaper is an open forum for the free expression of opinion, but it is not to be abused as a tool for reckless and malicious purposes." How one can argue that the Joke Issue lived up to these self-imposed standards is beyond us.

Let’s move past the hypocrisy of TSL’s actions and examine the argument that the College itself has established guidelines for a freedom of speech. The editorial states that the Harassment Policy supports the constitutional right to free speech. True. The Harassment Policy also protects individuals from anonymous written attacks. Specifically, "Harassing speech and actions ‘are especially abhorrent when they are made anonymously, for anonymity precludes the possibility of an exchange and exploration of ideas; moreover, such an anonymous message–by the very nature of its delivery–is a threat to the recipient’" (p.74 Student Handbook). The Harassment Policy does not dictate that the right to free speech is superior. The question that is usually asked in such cases is, "Does the community benefit when individual rights are infringed and, does this benefit justify allowing such attacks?" TSL feels that free speech is of the utmost importance in every case. Regarding the Joke Issue, we argue that there is no clear benefit to the community while there is a clear injury to the individual(s). As a community, we should value our peers enough to protect them from anonymous attacks.

Finally, when TSL refers to the Student Press Law Center they are merely referring to a group which has an opinion that by its very nature, is biased towards student publications. Their opinion is not based on Supreme Court decisions but rather, arguments which have not sufficiently swayed the Supreme Court. It must be noted that the Supreme Court has historically afforded private institutions significant leeway in their handling of student matters. Also, while TSL blames the administration, the charges are brought by a student and will be heard by a panel of students. Why is TSL afraid of being reviewed by peers who sit on the Judicial Board if they have done nothing wrong? We believe it is because their intent was not to discuss pertinent issues with the community, but simply to attack.

Sincerely,

Robi Ganguly

Andy Moon Kent Fung Celeste Chu Michio Brunner Putnam Shin Melvin Yee

Editor:

I haven’t always disliked TSL. My first two years at Pomona, I respected the newspaper for disseminating information, mostly based on facts, and maintaining a degree of integrity and respectability that should be expected out of a student newspaper. However, over the past two years, and particularly the last three semester, the mentality of TSL and its leadership has appeared to dissolve. Objective and comprehensive reporting have been replaced by inside jokes and "humor". This became most evident in last spring’s joke issue and reinforced in last semester’s joke issue, as well.

Before continuing, I would like to note that while I am in no way impartial toward this issue, I feel my sentiments are shared by the majority of Pomona students I’ve spoken with–that mandatory student fees are helping to fund a student publication lacking quality, objectiveness, and good judgment. However, I also find the majority of TSL reporters and editors to be credible and fair; the brunt of my frustration is aimed at the leadership of TSL, a clique that uses the newspaper as a bully pulpit with the intent of settling their personal vendettas.

Generally, one should rely on the Editor-in-Chief, as the top decision maker, to realize that freedom of the press should not be abused and hold his/her writers accountable. Earlier this year, the Editorial Board claimed that, "Freedom of expression and press freedom are privileges, and we as TSL realize our tenuous position. Our student newspaper is an open forum for free expression of opinion, but it is not to be abused as a tool for reckless and malicious purposes… Nor can a student publication be used to grind an axe. Using a forum such as a student newspaper as a personal weapon or instrument of power is an abuse of the privileges of a journalist… We must remember that trust and credibility can only come from producing media that is based upon professional standards. This publication is our best attempt at that." Really? Last year, they nominated a "Jackass Athlete of the Year" and provided a half-page middle-finger-salute to Fred Sontag ( http://www.tsl.pomona.edu/archive/990507j/INDEX.HTML ). This year, they chose to brand another athlete a bigot, enrage members of the black community, and offend a number of individuals. But as long as the intent isn’t reckless or malicious, I guess that’s still appropriate. Personally, I think there’s something inherently wrong in such blatant hypocrisy. If the leadership of the newspaper will not hold itself accountable, who will? Who should?

The most overused argument I have heard supporting the newspaper are claims that it was just a joke issue. "Suck it up, it’s supposed to be funny." I disagree. The joke issue should or could represent a satirical take on relevant campus issues. However, I can’t condone outright attacks on people, especially considering that it was done through the use of mandatory school funds. Furthermore, those claiming it was funny have very little empathy. Most of what they have heard is rumor or second-hand, often propagated by TSL. What if the attack had been on an open homosexual rather than a jock. I’m sure the reaction would be a bit different. What if you were targeted in the joke issue? What about your mom? Your religion? Your mom’s religion? Should passing unwarranted personal judgment be pardoned if it is qualified as a joke? What if you wrote a letter to the editor that the staff didn’t like or grabbed the last zucchini stick at snack before a TSL editor could get one or another frivolous matter and in turn, you were branded a tool? A slut? A racist? Suck it up! It’s supposed to be funny. Others claim that the subjects in the joke issue are deserving of the rebuke. "It’s time that some individuals be held accountable for their actions which offend the community." And even if they were offended, the can reply through letters to the editor. First, I don’t think that the newspaper should be a vehicle for public punishment, particularly when the editors cannot distinguish between community antagonists and professors, administrators, or students they simply don’t like. Second, the joke issue was not only distributed on the last week of the semester, but the attacks were launched anonymously. Personally, I can’t think of anything more cowardly than not owning up to your opinions which, with the exception of one writer, none of the others did. The student code goes on to say that, "Harassing speech and actions ‘are especially abhorrent when they are made anonymously, for anonymity precludes the possibility of an exchange and exploration of ideas; moreover, such an anonymous message–by the very nature of its deliver–is a threat to the recipient.’" Furthermore, publishing the edition at the end of the semester does not allow anyone to respond to what was written and encourages student sentiment, wherever it lies, to disappear. The last issue I would like to address is perhaps the most credible argument on behalf of the joke issue: freedom of speech. Granted the newspaper is given freedom of speech, but the intent of freedom of expression and speech is to promote and uphold vigorous dialogue of pertinent social issues, including moral, political, administrative, etc., not to address personal vendettas. The newspaper staff is fully aware of this difference, as they addressed this concern in the editorial board (third paragraph). In addition, the editorial board claims that their accusations were not "spoken solely to degrade or humiliate", a criteria defined as harassment by the student code. If they weren’t spoken solely to degrade or humiliate the various individuals, what was their motive? For shits and giggles? I agree that censoring parts of the newspaper is wrong when it is used silence dissenting views. However, I also agree that preventing libelous is appropriate, as well. Should we allow unabated speech at the expense of a few individuals. Could journalists attack your roommate, your professor, the person sitting next to you in class because a few individuals on TSL felt like it? The Student Life is not an open forum, and the opinions expressed are those of select people in a select group; yet, the medium is paid for by the college and distributed throughout Pomona. Furthermore, a serious newspaper should not be in the business of character assassination. Without journalistic integrity or accountability on the part of editorial staff and an abuse of their "privileges", I believe another organization needs to regulate the newspaper. I find that the newspaper staff is too irresponsible, administration too hesitant (or feels that the issue must be addressed by the students rather than the administration), judicial board too shackled by beauracracy, and Senate too indecisive. Consequently, I’m turning to the students to voice their opinions. As a student representative, I would appreciate your input, regardless of which stance you take. However, don’t let indifference control your thoughts, beliefs, or actions.

Sincerely,

Dan Silberstein ‘00