“The Foundation for Student Democracy Is a Free Student Press”

Staff Box By Blake Wilder

The literary theory explosion of the second half of this century has sought to analyze the structures of our language and how they create meaning on an unconscious and often unacknowledged level. Many theorists involved in the movement have concentrated on literature and more artistic forms of expression neglecting an equally relevant medium – that of print journalism.
The more fleeting validity of print journalism and the American cultural assumption that newspapers are objective mark the greatest different from the majority of writing of poststructuralist theory. However these differences are relatively small obstacles in attempting to reinterpret linguistic theories to apply to print journalism.
The fact remains that there is a structure that lends meaning to words on the page before they are read. In the case of print journalism, the inclusion of a story in a newspaper on a particular subject signifies that the subject was considered worthy of note or that it might be of particular interest to the readership of that paper.
Not only do newspapers in general influence cultural values of what is important but also The Oberlin Review in particular plays a crucial role in the structures of meaning that abound in the Oberlin community. This is because of the inevitable connections that readers have with members of the Review staff and our policy to include all letters received that are pertinent to the Oberlin community and are under 600 words — a policy which many students and groups take advantage of to get their voices out there (for example, the 10 letters about climate change in this issue.”
The Review started in 1874 as a bi-monthly eight-page, literary-news magazine with a table of contents. In 1889, the paper became weekly, and in 1908, the paper switched over to a strictly newspaper style and cautiously added headlines. An editorial at that time promised to use the “innovation judiciously,” and to this day headlines continue a matter that the staff debates for some time, as they are one of the major structures — along with choice of coverage and placement in the layout — that bring out the staff’s biases. The paper has gone through many other style changes over the years, changing the number of columns and pages several times and even printing bi-weekly for a period.
In fact, as a student run newspaper change is one of the major characteristics of the Review. With new writers and editors every semester, constant change is simultaneously one of the paper’s biggest weaknesses and strengths. The Review often struggles with teaching new editors in the midst of trying to print an issue, a problem that can become near impossible on top of class loads and attempts at a social life. Yet, the constant turnover brings in fresh ideas and views, which keeps the Review from becoming stagnant and forces it to adjust to changing interests on campus and in the community.
In 1941, the motto “the foundation for student democracy is a free student press” was displayed as part of the masthead, and even though the motto was dropped shortly after its meaning still holds true to this day. In 1969, students were allowed on the College Faculty Admissions committee, but after they released information to the Review that inappropriate political and sexual comments were being written on interview records they were dropped from the committee. They were persecuted by the Administration for being candid with the student body and the community. Unfortunately, it seems things have not changed so much. The student body and the Review are both still calling for the Administration to be frank about issues such as financial concerns including President Nancy Dye’s bonus in light of budget cuts and layoffs or the College’s commitment to diversity with the Multicultural Resource Center floundering and programs like Comparative American Studies only now gaining institutional support.
Unfortunately, even though the Review shares many common interests with the student body — the entire staff is, after all, comprised of students — it often faces heavy criticism because of the limitations of the structure of print journalism. To establish credibility, the Review feels compelled to subscribe to such structure as the supposed objectivity of print journalism, but with a campus that is simultaneously idealistic and cynical it impossible to avoid criticism. Not that criticism is inherently bad; it keeps the Review accountable to its readership. It does however get overly tiresome when the criticism does not recognize the structures that regulate the production of the Review. Take, for example, the climate justice campaign. They have been soliciting the Review to write multiple articles about their concerns and offering to write the articles themselves — a conflict of interest that would not fit in with the objective structure of the paper. Their response to the Review’s decision to write a single article was to send 10 letters which cost the Review extra money to print more pages and caused an editor to forgo sleep and a paper for a class to make sure they were all laid out.
Despite what seems to be a standout year for the Review, staff size and dedication has dwindled over the past several years. This decline has coincided with the rise of two other campus outlets for journalism — The Grape and Oberlin Online. The Grape is a wonderful contrast to the Review and much appreciated even by the Review staff, but at times both papers struggle to find interested people to write stories. Unlike the Review or The Grape who barely manage to pay their editors, Oberlin Online can afford to pay its writers, luring away students who might otherwise contribute to the student-run papers. Unfortunately, Oberlin Online is connected with the College. Their coverage shows it, not to mention that they sometimes modify and make up quotes in their stories.
To demand the information they want and to express their beliefs, students who are concerned should seek to contribute and work within the structures that create meaning for our community. And just as the community’s concerns influence what the Review prints, what the Review prints influences the values of the community. In the 1870s, the Review wrote an article soliciting a new name to call the Oberlin sports teams — then referred to as the Universities — and after a committee and two votes, the Oberlin athletes were to be known as the Yeomen — a name drawn from ye-O-men. As for more recent influences, seniors and juniors may remember in the spring of 2001 the reporting of Zeke going co-ed prompted a night of vandalism in the dorm. That incident, combined with a column by former Athletic Director Mike Muska about sportsphobia at Oberlin, produced a forum in Wilder main lounge the following week where over 200 students gathered to express their opinions. And the pages of the Perspectives section were filled with responses and responses to responses for several weeks.