Few things rile newspaper readers as much as what's printed on the opinion pages, and that's the way it's supposed to be. Every section of an American newspaper is grounded in and protected by the principles of free speech, but the opinion pages in particular are a vehicle for the exercise of the First Amendment.
It is in the opinion pages that Americans -- newspaper staff and readers alike -- can air their grievances and examine authority. In this country, unlike in so many others, citizens can express themselves freely, and nowhere is that right put to use as regularly as in a newspaper's opinion pages. The Cavalier Daily is no exception.
Last week, a reader objected to a column on the grounds that it was libelous. In the Sept. 27 piece "Where has the faculty accountability gone?" columnist Laura Parcells used a lecture by a University professor as the basis for a criticism of the professor's teaching style. The column was not libelous, though it certainly could have been better executed.
Of the professor, Parcells wrote, "It is a wonder that this woman was ever hired to teach at such a high-ranking University [sic]." The reader claimed this statement constituted a falsehood, and therefore was libelous. It's not.
There exist several Supreme Court precedents regarding libel and what is commonly known as the "opinion privilege." Generally speaking, the privilege protects statements of opinion from libel suits. The basis is that only statements that can be proven true or false can be defamatory, and that statements of opinion cannot, by their nature, be proven true or false. In practice, the particulars of the privilege vary between states, but according to The Associated Press media law guide, many states use four factors to distinguish fact from opinion. First, does the statement have a clear meaning that different people can identify? Second, is the statement verifiable? Third, could the textual context of the statement influence the average reader to infer factual content? Finally, does the broader social context signal usage as fact, or as opinion?
The meaning of Parcells' statement is clear -- she doesn't believe the professor should have been hired. The statement does not present any facts to verify, and therefore is not verifiable. The textual context of the statement is an opinion column. And on the fourth count, again, it is clear the statement is opinion.
In this case, there was no libel. But that doesn't mean that columnists can avoid libel merely by slapping an "in my opinion" on every statement. Some statements that appear to be opinion can be proven true or false -- the litmus test for whether a statement is fact. The U.S. Supreme Court laid out a relevant example in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990).
"Unlike the statement, 'In my opinion Mayor Jones is a liar,' the statement, 'In my opinion Mayor Jones shows his abysmal ignorance by accepting the teachings of Marx and Lenin,' would not be actionable," Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the Court.
Parcells' commentary clearly falls in the latter category.
The reader also objected to Parcells' contention that the professor should be fired if the lecture in question was an accurate indication of her teaching style. The reader claimed that statement demonstrated actual malice -- another requirement for a successful libel suit. But "actual malice" is a legal term, meaning that a newspaper publishes material it knows is factually wrong. The statement in question, "... if this lecture was any indication of her usual teaching style, she needs to be fired," is not factual, and thus cannot be factually wrong. It does not demonstrate actual malice.
I've always said that a columnist who doesn't ever make anyone angry probably isn't doing his job. If a writer's opinion never rubs someone the wrong way, she likely only writes on uninteresting topics that may not be the best use of her weekly space. Conversely, a columnist who capably tackles important and timely topics will inevitably anger some readers on occasion, because the topic is hot enough to have more than one credible side.
It is precisely because of opinion pages' capacity to provoke debate that they are so important to free speech. A society must challenge itself and those who influence it, whether the influential parties are government leaders or college professors. Without that debate, we would stagnate. It is vital to our way of life, and particularly poignant at a university whose success in its mission absolutely depends upon the free flow of ideas.
(Masha Herbst can be reached at
ombud@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
