A Critique of the Opinions Section

Last week’s editorial is a hypocritical mess and falsely claims that The Campus gives students an adequate space to voice their opinions.  In “A Paper for the People,”  the editorial board takes pride in publishing any article that’s not outright slander. “This section is a reflection of the submissions we receive;” “it reflects” the views of the campus. “We do not wish to be selective” in the articles we publish and adding a warning to a piece is “undue editorial power.”  See, they say, send us whatever, we’ll publish it!

Let’s be clear: This isn’t journalism. No self-respecting newspaper publishes like this.

An editorial team isn’t a glorified spam filter, a newspaper isn’t a printed-out copy of Yik-Yak. Editors shouldn’t censor based on their own political leanings, but they also shouldn’t allow any drivel through. They should edit and curate. They should refuse to publish articles that lack evidence, that peddle shallow morals, that are poorly written. When something like “I’m Only Human” arrives on an editor’s desk, they have a duty to evaluate it, not just publish it because it “is able to articulate an opinion.” When something fails to meet The Campus’ stated value of a “constructive and respectful dialogue,” it shouldn’t be published.

But The Campus claims they’re different from other newspapers. The Campus puts forth that since they publish everything, they’re acting as the student voice. It’s a convenient excuse to abdicate responsibility for what they publish. It’s also untrue on both accounts. As stated in the masthead, The Campus allows editors to deny publication *for any reason.* Opinions have been denied publication in the past. If The Campus is publishing everything it receives now, that’s only because they lack submissions – if everyone at the college submitted something this week, The Campus would be forced to be selective.

But more importantly, publishing everything doesn’t make for a student voice.

Currently, the op-ed section isn’t consciously biased, just too myopic to see why no one wants to submit anything. We know many minority voices can’t be found in this section. But what if more minorities submitted? The editorial board makes the insipid Millsean argument that if only they could publish all the views of the student body, then we’d be a step closer to progress. What a flip flop: to quote the board’s “A Call for Compassion,”  “at an elite, informed institution such as Middlebury, let us hold ourselves to a higher standard of speech – one that respects and acknowledges the power dynamic at play.” Minorities here get harassed for their identity alone; publishing an unpopular opinion can subject vulnerable students to further harassment. No amount of inclusive rhetoric can bracket real world status inequalities. Neutral spaces are not free spaces.

Then there are numerous, insidious ways The Campus doesn’t fulfill its democratic promise. The Campus summarily rejects “lists and poetry,” thinking these forms don’t belong in a newspaper. Of course, this statement is wrong; the op-ed section has published both lists and poetry before. In 2013, The Campus published “It Is Easy Being Green,” a poem that had a trigger warning. Opinions don’t need to take a certain form. Poetry and other writing styles are some of the most accessible means of expression, available to anyone. “Journalistic” writing on the other hand, is a style that’s not intuitive at best and classist at worst. Privileging one over the other means The Campus can’t claim it’s a place where students truly can express themselves.

Another way The Campus fails to be a voice for students is by taking a stance against anonymity. Sure, The Campus allows for anonymous submissions under extenuating circumstances. But in an editorial they overwhelmingly valorize the “courage” to publish under a real name, only paying lip-service to the benefits of anonymity. This approach discourages two groups from publishing: 1) people with actual unpopular opinions and 2) any vulnerable minorities who will face harassment for their views. Some of the most real conversation happens in the anonymous comments and some of the most incisive commentary comes from Beyond The Green’s anonymous articles. This op-ed section fails at sparking these kinds of conversations. Instead, we’re subjected to editorials that don’t seriously challenge anything. Take the “Disrupt the Finance Pipeline” editorial from September, which wavers between thanking alumni at Goldman Sachs for reaching out and condemning the financial industry for taking advantage of Midd students. The editorial concludes that students should be “more thoughtful” about their futures. Here’s a cautionary tale of mixing clickbait headlines from The Atlantic with boardroom consensus. This editorial, like many others, apparently failed to contribute to a constructive dialogue on campus: there’s one comment online. And it’s sarcastic.

Even seemingly aesthetic quibbles are actual signs of democratic failings. When President Patton gets to write 300 words over The Campus’ word limit, are all community members here equal in expressing their views? When The Campus insists every writer includes her hometown, isn’t that forcing the student to subject herself to arguments against her upbringing and not her opinion? What does a writer’s hometown even add to the dialogue?

Ultimately, The Campus’ claim of being an adequate space for student voices is wishful thinking. And here we come to some of the worst of this editorial. The writers emphatically state that The Campus does not solicit for op-eds. However, a newspaper dedicated to expressing a multitude of student views would have already proactively worked with cultural organizations to include a diversity of views. A true people’s voice doesn’t just happen. The “publish everything” mindset doesn’t work. It’s on The Campus to cultivate a truly inclusive student voice.

 

Now publish this.