I HAVE made it through almost the entire year without jumping into an in-depth analysis of anything in the opinion section. I have done so because I feel that the opinions expressed in the columns are most adequately addressed by letters to the editor. If I were to spend time criticizing opinions that I disagreed with, I would not have space to write about anything else.
But last week, Anthony Dick's "Passover II: Judgment Day" column sparked both letters to the editor and letters to me. The e-mails I received had a common theme: Yes, we understand free speech, but we wonder why The Cavalier Daily does not exercise editorial discretion and refuse to run columns like Dick's most recent effort.
I confess some ignorance of the guidelines for The Cavalier Daily to take such a step, so I contacted some current and former opinion staff members, as well as Dick, to get their take on the matter.
One former staffer told me he could not figure out what Dick was trying to satirize. Dick told me that he was attempting a satire of "those who believe the Biblical story of Passover to be true, and of those who believe that society needs to turn back to the Bible for a model of morality."
OK, so that is out of the way. With that said, should The Cavalier Daily have published the column?
Obviously, the column is offensive. Dick admitted that but said he felt that "censoring reasoned offensiveness is not what a free society does." I agree that pulling a column, with the only reason being its offensive nature, is not a good move, but there is more to the story.
To those readers who wondered if The Cavalier Daily prints everything its columnists submit - the answer is no. The previous executive editor estimated that about one column per week was pulled during her tenure. The main reasons for a column getting pulled were lack of research, lack of understanding of the issue, and holes in the argument. Dick told me that he has had one column pulled because it was just not a good column, and he said he was glad that it was pulled.
Three former executive editors responded to my query about guidelines with similar answers. Their feeling was that a good column can be provocative without being inflammatory, and that if they had received a similar column, they would have helped the columnist rework it to express his point better. This could mean delaying the column while the editors and the columnist worked out an acceptable version.
The current executive editor told me that delaying Dick's column was not an option because there are more than enough columns to fill two pages each day for the rest of the semester. I am not sure that is really relevant, and it also rings of taking the easy way out.
The executive editor made a better point when he pointed out that every column could be improved in some way, and he felt the Passover column met the minimum threshold of "runnability." On the other hand, some of the former editors agreed that the column should not have run without more editing - one termed it a "huge" editing error, another called the column as it ran "unprintable," and another described it as "lazy."
I am hesitant to go that far, simply because it raises an issue I deal with every week as I write this column. I have more journalism experience and more overall life experience than most Cavalier Daily staffers. An issue like editorial discretion involves the use of good judgment, but good judgment is something acquired over time.
It is a common reaction when I read a Cavalier Daily opinion column for me to dismiss it as a 19- or 20-year-old who thinks he or she knows everything. Of course, when I was 19 and worked at The Cavalier Daily, I thought I knew everything. Cocky would be an understatement for my approach to some things as a Cavalier Daily staffer. As a 28-year-old Christian, I found Dick's column very offensive, but as a 19-year-old atheist (which I was), I would have found it hilarious.
Because I can remember what it was like to be in that situation, I have a problem with using a "What were you idiots thinking?" tone. To expect a Cavalier Daily editor to have the same sense of good judgment as a veteran newspaperman is probably expecting too much. In fact, the Managing Board did debate whether to run Dick's column - it was not a decision they made lightly.
Would I have run the column as is? Probably not. With some editing? Definitely. Again, an offensive opinion by itself is no reason to deny publication. I think The Cavalier Daily got a tad lazy (the executive editor admitted the editors should have gone over the column line-by-line with Dick), but that is part of gaining experience. With this episode completed, hopefully they can do better next time.
(Matthew Branson can be reached at ombud@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 12 minutes agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
