As Editor-in-Chief and Opinions Editor, I am glad to see The DePauw considered as a relevant publication, especially when it comes to campus climate discussions in our opinion section. However, I feel that our relevance has come at the cost of starting a mounting conflict, if social media is any indicator. While I want the newspaper to remain relevant, I also want it to be truthful, fair and informative.
Opinion columns, by their very nature, can blur the line between fairness and truth. When I prepare an opinion section, I sometimes feel like I’ve entered murky waters, and that no matter what decision I make, something unseen may strike because of my ignorance. This editorial process is difficult, but I want to explain this difficulty so our readers can understand where we are coming from. The DePauw is not here to pick sides; we are here to shine a light on all sides.
The opinions section is the most personal and emotional part of the paper. To read an opinion is to directly engage with an individual’s thoughts. What’s more, any student at DePauw can write an opinion for the newspaper. And because our campus is so small, we remember the faces and names of those columnists. Given the variety of perspectives and worldviews that constitute the DePauw bubble, disagreements are inevitable. Disagreements about campus climate, however, are more serious. Everyone is involved, whether they like it or not.
For whatever reason, social media has become the place to debate these issues. Facebook and Yik Yak have become hectic crucibles in which we champion certain perspectives and ridicule others. Many conversations about campus climate are often strained, vindictive and aggressive.
These emotions are not negative as much as they are indicative of a deeper campus consciousness that has been evolving ever since Ashton Johnson’s article “Excuse me, but your privilege is in my way” was published in The DePauw in 2014. If you weren’t on campus then, suffice it to say that Johnson’s article essentially started it all. Her article hit a nerve, and people (mostly white students) didn’t like what they felt. Individuals of color banded together, mobilizing a force that would cause the entire community to spend an entire day engaging in difficult discussions.
Two articles published this semester remind me of Johnson’s article: Taylor Jones’s “Are you too privileged to understand,” and Jessica Pagan’s “The Greek entitlement: The otherness on DePauw’s campus.” Both writers attacked well-known entities in a public way, just as Ashton criticized the entire institution for being blinded by privilege. Both Jones and Pagan were emotional; anger and pain fueled both of their columns. Their emotion made people listen, whether their audiences liked what they had to say or not.
If you read those articles and found that you disagreed with our choice to publish them, I ask you to consider the conflict from the editorial point of view. If I don’t publish Pagan’s column, then she might think I’m invalidating her experience, that I mean to silence her. But if I publish the column, then the Greek community is enraged. It is impossible to please everyone.
The DePauw, however, is not obligated to please everyone. We are obligated to run a fair and accurate publication. Publishing these articles isn’t about endorsing every sentiment inside them. It is about creating a space in which community members can engage each other in meaningful, important conversations. We aren’t trying to “get” anyone, but at the same time, we think a proliferation of difficult ideas makes for a stimulating opinion section. Having said that, I believe the opinion section can, and should, move past the vindictive, revenge-seeking style of article. How we conduct these conversations is almost as important as what we actually discuss.
For anyone thinking about writing an opinion in the future, please ask yourself: What do I want to accomplish with this column? If the goal is inspired by hate or revenge, then The DePauw will not run that column. Leave the nasty negativity to Yik Yak. The DePauw will no longer take space away from other meaningful contributors just so one individual can be vindicated.
If the discourse about campus climate continues obsess over all the problems that need fixing, then when will we make time to discuss solutions to these problems. By critiquing an entity, individual or idea, one inherently makes prescriptions. If you say I do something wrong, then the idea is that you think I should do something else. That “something else” is our ticket to building a better campus climate.
As a senior, I can say the DePauw community is so much more conscientious of campus climate issues than when I was a first-year. The progress we’ve made so far is not enough, however. As always, there is more work to be done.
Both sides need to see both sides. If this doesn’t happen, what are we really doing? Where is this conversation leading to? Will it just bury itself in Facebook statuses? Can we not construct new solutions while also destroying the bad systems?