In a letter in Thursday’s edition of the Herald (“Spectator’s views on free speech hypocritical,” Nov. 2), members of the Queer Alliance charge members of the Brown Spectator editorial staff with having interfered with the Queer Alliance’s right to free speech. The letter quickly moves to an attack of all political conservatives, stating, “Conservatives place high value on their own free speech but will gladly appoint themselves censors and resort to petty criminality when they face the speech of a group whose ‘agenda’ they disagree with.”
How do we move from a charge against a specific set of individuals to the indictment of an entire political group? Were the scenario to be played out in the reverse, we’d be reading about a clear case of homophobia; gross generalizations about entire communities are dangerously irresponsible.
The letter also asks that the campus “remembers this hypocrisy the next time one of Brown’s martyred conservatives complains that his freedom of speech is not respected.” According to email correspondence of which I was a recipient, gay administrators in the Student Activities Office (whose identity politics are as deeply institutionalized as is their receipt of paychecks every-other Thursday), encouraged the writing of the Queer Alliance’s letter. The concerns of conservatives and other political minorities on this campus should not be written off as mere “complaints” when there is so much evidence to back up claims of repeated institutional impropriety and whoring out of identity politics. Instances in which authority is abused in an effort to direct political discourse by promoting a particular position should not be tolerated by any group–especially when the justifications for doing so are as thin as, “well, we’re both gay” (insert other empty identity label here).
In early November, I submitted the above letter to the BDH in response to a letter authored by members of the Queer Alliance attacking the Spectator (“Spectator’s views on free speech hypocritical,” Nov. 2); I was told that the letter would run on Monday, November 6. When the letter never ran, I emailed the BDH opinions editors to find out what had happened. They replied, stating that other editors had nixed the letter because it was “inflammatory.” I asked if it would be possible for me to briefly defend my letter to those “other editors,” to which I received a response stating that my options were to either change my letter or not have it printed.
Upset about the situation, I contacted Pratik Chougule, Editor-in-Chief of the Spectator; he found nothing wrong with my letter, agreed to print it, and asked that I write this accompaniment.
At his suggestion, I also then contacted BDH Editor-in-Chief Robert Corey-Boulet to voice my concerns; Pratik felt that there was good chance that perhaps the BDH’s Editor-in-Chief was not aware of the circumstances surrounding my letter. As I had expected however, I came to find that Robert was in fact the very editor who had nixed my piece. In his response to my inquiry, BDH Editor-in-Chief Robert Corey-Boulet stated, “Commenting on the sexual orientation of administrators is just not something we do (regardless of how relevant it might be to this particular incident).” Essentially, the letter was not cut for language—the letter was neither vulgar nor obscene, and the somewhat independent BDH opinions editors had already given it the “go ahead.”—but was instead cut for content. It was the letter’s very suggestion that sexuality and identity politics might actually play a role in the policy making of particular powerful individuals with which BDH Editor-in-Chief Robert Corey-Boulet personally found problematic.
This series of events is troubling because of the light it sheds on a number of issues, including the nature of journalistic responsibility today and the realization of the very real role that identity politics play in everyday policy making decisions. Robert Corey-Boulet, in email correspondence, recognized the relevance of the sexuality of particular administrators to this particular incident, yet he refused to acknowledge any such relevance in the print of his paper. Following what has come to represent just our most recent round of sexual orientation-related scandals (in the Foley and Haggard cases), how can any editor justify withholding relevant information about the sexuality of a person in power? Is his own discomfort with the issue reason enough to limit his paper to printing only a neutered version of the truth? The sexuality of administrators in the Student Activities Office potentially played a deciding role in policy making. Administrators are expected to act as unbiased advocates for all students and make decisions accordingly. Instead, certain administrators involved in this case may have aligned their gay-white-male-middle class identity with the gay-white-male-middle class identity of people like those who wrote the Nov 2 letter, and in doing so, took what could be considered behind-the-scenes action to manipulate political discourse on campus and give their team an edge. I may have very little in common with the right or with most of the writers of this publication, but I can recognize that this kind of behavior is unfair and is dangerous to the free exchange of ideas; I value the opportunities for free speech that the Spectator provides for our campus. If not exposed, the practice of making decisions based on common identity could be applied again at times when the stakes are higher, and then it might be more than just the “free exchange of ideas” at risk. The next time any political minority on campus suggests that there are institutional forces working against them and you’re inclined to laugh, thinking, “there’s no evidence of that,” it may also be worth remembering that there are some topics that our school newspaper is too closeted in its own biases to print.
Below is my entire email exchange with the BDH
Original letter w/ Opinion Editor’s changes:
In a letter in Thursday’s edition of the Herald (“Spectator’s views on free speech hypocritical,” Nov. 2), members of the Queer Alliance charge members of the Brown Spectator editorial staff with having interfered with the Queer Alliance’s right to free speech. The letter quickly moves to an attack of all political conservatives, stating, “Conservatives place high value on their own free speech but will gladly appoint themselves censors and resort to petty criminality when they face the speech of a group whose ‘agenda’ they disagree with.”
How do we move from a charge against a specific set of individuals to the indictment of an entire political group? Were the scenario to be played out in the reverse, we’d be reading about a clear case of homophobia; gross generalizations about entire communities are dangerously irresponsible.
The letter also asks that the campus “remembers this hypocrisy the next time one of Brown’s martyred conservatives complains that his freedom of speech is not respected.” According to email correspondence that I have seen, gay administrators in the Student Activities Office (whose identity politics are as deeply institutionalized as is their receipt of paychecks every-other Thursday), encouraged the writing of the Queer Alliance’s letter. Therefore, it should be pretty clear whose rights to free speech are at risk on this campus on the institutional level.
In a year in which freedom of speech and freedom of expression surrounding the QA’s annual dance have been put under censorship pressure by the office of Health Education, the Office of Student Life and the Student Activities Office-(we’d never write about that-it might hurt ticket sales!)-we should all be taking our free speech very seriously.”
Dear Joshua,
I’m not sure why it wasn’t run, because it was marked “Run Monday.” Probably administrative oversight. Sorry about that. Today is the first day this week that I personally go in to do the page, so I will be sure to include your letter for Wednesday’s paper.
Michal
Alright: I found out why your letter wasn’t run. The editorial board nixed it, saying it was too inflammatory. Unfortunately, I”m just one of many editors here and don’t have much of a say when they all disagree with me on running something.
Sorry that this happened, and I appreciate the effort you put into your submission. I did my best to get it published,
Michal
Dear Joshua,
The only way I think you can get the editorial board to OK your letter is if you cut more things out. I would suggest: changing “gay administrators encouraged” to just “administrators at the SAO encouraged,” without mentioning their sexuality; and cut out the stuff about university censorship of the dance, as you suggested yourself. Send the new version directly to me (at this email I am writing you from) and I will take it myself to the other editors, and see if they are satisfied by the changes.
Otherwise, if you feel like that is watering down your comments too much for you to stay true to your message, then all I can say is that The Herald reserves the right to refuse to publish any submissions for whatever reason, just like any other private publication.
Best wishes,
Michal
Revised version:
In a letter in Thursday’s edition of the Herald (“Spectator’s views on free speech hypocritical,” Nov. 2), members of the Queer Alliance charge members of the Brown Spectator editorial staff with having interfered with the Queer Alliance’s right to free speech. The letter quickly moves to an attack of all political conservatives, stating, “Conservatives place high value on their own free speech but will gladly appoint themselves censors and resort to petty criminality when they face the speech of a group whose ‘agenda’ they disagree with.”
How do we move from a charge against a specific set of individuals to the indictment of an entire political group? Were the scenario to be played out in the reverse, we’d be reading about a clear case of homophobia; gross generalizations about entire communities are dangerously irresponsible.
The letter also asks that the campus “remembers this hypocrisy the next time one of Brown’s martyred conservatives complains that his freedom of speech is not respected.” According to email correspondence of which I was a recipient, gay administrators in the Student Activities Office (whose identity politics are as deeply institutionalized as is their receipt of paychecks every-other Thursday), encouraged the writing of the Queer Alliance’s letter. The concerns of conservatives and other political minorities on this campus should not be written off as mere “complaints” when there is so much evidence to back up claims of repeated institutional impropriety and whoring out of identity politics. Instances in which authority is abused in an effort to direct political discourse by promoting a particular position should not be tolerated by any group–especially when the justifications for doing so are as thin as, “well, we’re both gay” (insert other empty identity label here).
No reply to revised version (I refused to remove “gay” administrators. He said the editorial board would not entertain a meeting with me even though I asked for an opportunity to explain why I thought keeping the word “gay” was important.)
Robbie-
Pratik Chougule suggested that I email you. I had a meeting with Pratik today because the Spectator will be publishing a letter to the editor that the BDH rejected. Last week, I submitted a letter to the BDH, and I was told by Michal that the letter would run on monday 11/6. When the letter never ran, I emailed Michal to find out what happened. Michal emailed back saying that other editors had nixed it. I asked Michal if it would be possible for me to briefly defend my letter to those “other editors” (he didn’t say who had problems), to which he responded that my options were either to change my letter or not have it printed.
I guess I’m confused about the whole process: if the opinion editors found nothing wrong with the letter–it wasn’t vulgar, obscene, etc–then did other editors intervene and censor the letter based on content??
Thanks so much
hope you’re enjoying the weather
josh
revised version that bdh still wouldn’t print because I wouldn’t remove “gay” from “gay administrators”:
In a letter in Thursday’s edition of the Herald (“Spectator’s views on free speech hypocritical,” Nov. 2), members of the Queer Alliance charge members of the Brown Spectator editorial staff with having interfered with the Queer Alliance’s right to free speech. The letter quickly moves to an attack of all political conservatives, stating, “Conservatives place high value on their own free speech but will gladly appoint themselves censors and resort to petty criminality when they face the speech of a group whose ‘agenda’ they disagree with.”
How do we move from a charge against a specific set of individuals to the indictment of an entire political group? Were the scenario to be played out in the reverse, we’d be reading about a clear case of homophobia; gross generalizations about entire communities are dangerously irresponsible.
The letter also asks that the campus “remembers this hypocrisy the next time one of Brown’s martyred conservatives complains that his freedom of speech is not respected.” According to email correspondence of which I was a recipient, gay administrators in the Student Activities Office (whose identity politics are as deeply institutionalized as is their receipt of paychecks every-other Thursday), encouraged the writing of the Queer Alliance’s letter. The concerns of conservatives and other political minorities on this campus should not be written off as mere “complaints” when there is so much evidence to back up claims of repeated institutional impropriety and whoring out of identity politics. Instances in which authority is abused in an effort to direct political discourse by promoting a particular position should not be tolerated by any group–especially when the justifications for doing so are as thin as, “well, we’re both gay” (insert other empty identity label here).
Hi Josh,
Thanks for bringing this to me.
I was the one who pulled the letter. The problem lies primarily in this portion: “According to email correspondence of which I was a recipient, gay administrators in the Student Activities Office (whose identity politics are as deeply institutionalized as is their receipt of paychecks every-other Thursday), encouraged the writing of the Queer Alliance’s letter.”
This is unsubstantiated (and by that I mean I haven’t seen the correspondence, not that I don’t trust what you say). Also, commenting on the sexual orientation of administrators is just not something we do (regardless of how relevant it might be to this particular incident). If we printed it and it turned out to be false, that would be a huge problem (as I’m sure you’re well aware). Though the opinions editors probably thought the letter was OK, they are not as well-versed as other editorial board members regarding what is journalistically responsible.
Your argument is sound. It’s the reference to specific people and incidents that I’m not confident in (which, again, is no reflection on you) that caused us to pull the letter.
Let me know if you have additional questions, want to send in a revised version, etc.
Have a great weekend. Again, thanks for handling this responsibly.
rcb
