<< Front page Commentary February 20, 2004

Editorial

Review will not lower standards

Responding to institutional retaliation against our column, “In the Locker Room,” we feel compelled to address attempts at censorship and coercion aimed at a member of the Review staff. Consider the following analogy:

Suppose you work for a campus newspaper and were majoring in a given academic department. A story comes your way that you know will not please one of your instructors. Should this have any bearing on whether or not you publish an article about that department? Does that department (and the instructor) have the right to forfeit your education and threaten your academic standing, simply because they don’t want something to be published in the paper? Furthermore, does that instructor or department have the right to personally threaten you for printing something to their displeasure?

Unfortunately, this seems to be the case in the athletics department. It is a shame since the College administration has been an adamant and tireless supporter of student media. Never under the present administration has the Review been restrained by any absurd notion of “selective censorship,” which has been leveraged against the staff of so many other college publications.

Levying threats against Review staff, athletes and trainers to suppress speech that the athletic department simply does not like is cowardly and deplorable. But that has been the modus operandi of the department in dealing with their concerns about “In the Locker Room.” “In the Locker Room” does not censor swearing, because most college students swear. It does not censor sexual innuendoes because we have no ban on promiscuity. It does not ban references to alcohol because few people subscribe to the notion of temperance on campus. It does not censor references to mild violence because our readers could easily find elsewhere, such as in a PG-13 movie from Campus Video.

That said, we have to respect that, according to various sources within the department, this feature is “hurting the players, trainers and everyone else.” We hope that the individuals featured in “In the Locker Room” did not hurt their vocal chords talking during their interview. It seems more likely that the source of this hurt is pressure from the department.

We will not alter details at the whim of the athletics department. Instead, we will censor it in the most obvious way by removing it completely so that everyone knows it is being censored.

At the same time, we will not speak against the new athletic administration’s exemplary goals, which have energized Oberlin sports. But we will do what the department would not — bring this issue out into the open, so that all parties can voice their thoughts.

It is agreed by the editorial staff of this publication that we are — as ever — willing to edit the content and nature of “In the Locker Room” voluntarily. We have always made editorial decisions regarding overly lewd remarks, or printing racial, sexual or religious remarks made in jest or with offensive overtones. We will not concede to any threats of retaliation made by College faculty or departments, however.

This staff will not pass a censorship list on to the next editorial board; forever damaging free speech on campus and the communication between the administration and The Oberlin Review, vital for bringing a free news source to this campus.

We will not bow to a lower standard of free speech on this campus.

Editorials are the responsibility of the Review editorial board—the Editor in Chief
and Commentary Editor—and do not necessarily reflect the view of the staff
of the
Review.


 
 
   

The Review News Service: News, weather, sports and more, in your email every Sunday and Wednesday night. To subscribe, send an email to subscriptions@
oberlinreview.org