Despite rumors, accusations, and much debate, The Student Life appears to be emerging from recent attacks over the joke issue it published April 1 and accusations of bias in election reporting nearly unscathed. After weeks of debate in committees, Senate meetings, and the newspaper’s pages, the closest it came to being sanctioned was a failed motion at Tuesday’s Senate meeting that would have amounted to little more than an editorial suggestion.

"The joke issue is not going to be stopped. The editor-in-chief is not going to be yanked. Funding is not going to be decreased," said Emeka Okereke ’00, Senate Communications Commissioner and chair of the Print Media Committee, which oversees TSL operations.

Okereke said that the selection process for Editor-in-Chief would become more public in the future, featuring broad advertising for the position. Current Editor-in-Chief Megan Purn ’00 said that the process has always been that way, but that Okereke needed to reassure the Senate that the process was fair.

At issue in the debate were attacks viewed as anonymous, ad hominem, slanderous and anti-Semitic in the joke issue, problems that have been brewing since at least last semester’s issue. But the controversy all boiled down to one question: who controls the student newspaper?

"Senate should be looked at as publisher of the newspaper," said Sports Commissioner Dan Silberstein ’00. "Taking that into account, we are responsible for the content of the newspaper."

"If a lot of the student body was offended by the joke issue, then I think we, as representatives, are required to do something about it," said North Campus Senator Robi Ganguly ‘00.

"For the government to ask something of us or require us to do something or intimidate us isn’t appropriate," countered Purn. She added that she has apologized to students who have expressed offense to her, but stands by her right to publish offensive material.

"I don’t know if [some items] were necessarily deemed to be in good judgment," she said, "but I think we recognize greater issues behind them."

Both sides claim the majority of the student body tilts their way.

Ganguly’s motion at Tuesday’s meeting would have suggested thatTSL solicit joke articles from the entire community when preparing the joke issue. Proposed as time ran out and with little accomplished in the debate, it failed on a 9-4 vote.

"I think we pretty much put it to bed," said ASPC President Richard Park ’00, speculating that, having been voted on, the topic would not come up again. Park said he was satisfied with the outcome.

"I felt like we got railroaded," said Ganguly after the meeting, noting that it ended due to time constraints. "It didn’t allow for adequate debate and student response."

In addition, Dean of Students Ann Quinley announced that no judiciary board charges would be brought against the paper. "We felt it was not appropriate and that it did violate the First Amendment rights of The Student Life," Quinley said after consulting with the school’s attorney. The charge, submitted by Silberstein, alleged harassment and other violations of the student code.

Tuesday’s meeting began with Professor of Politics John Seery giving a strong defense of TSL that set the tone for much of the rest of the meeting.

"I think greatest sin on an academic campus is a threat to free speech," he said. "It threatens ideas in circulation, and we’re here for the circulation of ideas." After speaking for about 10 minutes, Seery left the room to vigorous applause.

Many thought that the needs of the community outweighed an absolute free speech stance, however.

"I was deeply disturbed and offended by TSL’s joke issue," said Mike Saffitz ’02. "TSL has chosen not to center the joke issue on fictional spoofing. They’ve chosen to settle instead on personal vendettas. No amount of legal pretense or academic discussion on censorship is going to solve the deep and personal opinions on the joke issue."

"I’m not fine with singling out individuals who may have taken issue with [TSL] during the year and writing about them in mean-spirited ways," said Associate Dean of Students Neil Gerard in an interview before the meeting. "It’s more about getting their jollies than about a serious attempt to communicate at any level."

TSL advocates countered with the argument that, even when in bad taste, the paper should be allowed free speech rights and that allowing Senate any control would set a dangerous precedent.

Others felt differently.

"I would like to see the editors humbled, either fired or made to give an apology," said Silberstein.

Not all of those who felt strongly that TSL had erred in publishing the attacks advocated punishment, however. Though he called the paper an "embarrassment" with "control problems," Conor Friedersdorf ’02, one of TSL’s staunchest critics and most frequent targets in the joke issue, said he did not want to impose external constraints on the paper. He said these should instead be developed from within with the community in mind.

"When we invoke someone’s name we’re not invoking them as a person," Purn said, claiming the attacks were not meant to be taken personally. "We’re invoking the discourse surrounding them."

Among the rumors debunked in the course of discussions were that Silberstein’s mother was seeking outside action, and that articles written in the joke issue about the fictional Bobby DeRideo actually referred to Austin Harris ’03.

Silberstein and Gerard reported that Hillel had reported anti-Semitic accusations against the joke issue to the Anti-Defamation League, League officials in Los Angeles had no record of seeing the publication. In a meeting with Managing Editor Matt Preusch ’00, an initially angry member of Hillel came to understand the jokes as satire, according to Preusch.

The hottest issues at the meeting were the anonymous nature of the articles, the difficulty in criticizing TSL because of fear that the critic would end up lampooned in its pages, and the fact that student funds went towards a publication that turned around and attacked students.

Nate Truitt ’00, speaking in TSL’s defense, pointed out that student fees go to many events that aren’t broadly supported by the student body. Indeed, a US Supreme Court case recently upheld the constitutionality of such mandatory student fees.

As for charges that publishing anonymously allowed TSL’s writers too much freedom, editors countered that the editorial board stands in to represent the entire staff for the joke issue.

"Our writers are not hiding behind free speech," Managing Editor Dave Roth ’00 said. "They can hide behind me."

"If there are actual violations of the student code, we should be held accountable," said Preusch also on the editorial board, who argued that the joke issue provided writers a protected forum to raise issues.

Much of the current unrest comes from the paper’s revisiting issues it brought up in last December’s joke issue, which also received Senate’s attention at that time. In an open forum Senate held at the end of last semester, the group seemed poised to take action against the paper, either by firing individuals or stepping in with editorial oversight.

"They knew [last semester’s issue] upset people and took the opportunity to re-offend," said Gerard.

Silberstein claims that there was a "tacit agreement" between TSL and Senate that the paper would move the time of the joke issue’s publication from the end of the semester, put writers’ names on articles, and knock off the personal jokes.

Purn said she only agreed to publish the issue earlier in the semester.

"We never really came to an agreement over what was right or wrong," said Okereke.

The joke issue is a long-standing tradition for TSL. Critics say the issue has in the past three semesters crossed a line, raising questions about the limits and procedures that go into the issue.

A TSL editorial stipulates that "the 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. Opinions rooted in unsubstantiated rumor or rooted in nothing at all only reveal the writer to be irresponsible and unworthy of respect."

"Basically anyone who’s interested in contributing is more than welcome to submit ideas or articles," said Purn, describing how the issue comes together. She said that section editors and writers are given more freedom from editorial oversight than usual, though nothing is published sight unseen. "We just cautioned people to make sure what they were doing was deliberate and to discuss things with us, which happened for the most part," she said. Though alcohol is usually present during the layout session for the joke issue, it was much less prevalent this year, according to Purn.

"The issue provides a release of tension for the writers, and a release from control," said Purn. "It’s supposed to be funny for everybody."

Many contend these two purposes have been at odds for the past year, and have proposed various long-term solutions.

"It strikes me that the purpose of this should be thought through" with the idea of giving the issue a more unified direction, said Professor of Politics Phil Munoz, who sits on the print media committee.

"There was not a [unified] purpose of the issue among the staff," Roth acknowledged. "This issue reflects that."

While few advocated abandoning the joke issue altogether, most hoped it would be more productive in the future — on both sides. "I’m hearing ‘the problem is now I have to talk to the editors and we have to talk about our problems,’" Nate Truitt ’00 said. "This is not a problem, it’s a good thing."

Gerard also expressed hope that more dialogue would be the product of all the controversy.

"Perhaps we will see some discussion with candidates for future editor," he said. "Maybe that’s the place to begin."

Adam Graham-Silverman is a Staff Writer for both The Student Life and The Inland Valley Our Times. He was given no editorial direction for this article, and did not show it to TSL editors until it was completed.