The Cavalier Daily's Managing Board -- comprising the Editor-in-Chief, Executive Editor, Managing Editor, Operations Manager and Chief Financial Officer -- gathers daily to debate, decide and shape the opinion they will put forth as the lead editorial. It's a prerogative of the top people on the newspaper, a podium of great power that comes with, as Spider-Man's Uncle Ben reminded us, great responsibility.
Last week, one of its targets became pretty angry. Living Wage Campaign members felt their words were taken out of context and their message perverted. They said an editorial made it seem as if the Campaign strategically broke rules and believed those actions were justified.
The weekend before, Campaign members split up the Grounds and wrote "10.72" on various surfaces, representing the number they say is a living wage for University employees. One member chalked on certain surfaces of the Lawn where the rules specifically prohibited chalking, such as brick or areas not hit by rain, and the Campaign later apologized for the member's actions.
The editorial ("Chalk it up to defacement," March 30) was marked by a tone of disgust and annoyance, a sentiment seen in this sarcastic statement: "reasoned debate includes graffiti."
The Managing Board felt some Campaign members thought they were above the rules, their cause justifying their means. In proving this, they cited a letter from Campaign member Benjamin Van Dyne that said the following: "Issues that go to the heart of the University's moral vision MUST have a place [on the Lawn], even if that is a little disruptive to the lives of its residents, no matter what the regulations say."
Van Dyne said yesterday he wasn't specifically saying chalking in prohibited places is excusable, but making a larger point -- sometimes rules must be broken if the issue warrants it. He also said his words were not very clear and were easy to misinterpret.
The editorial also observed that because of a conscious decision against having a hierarchal leadership, the Campaign was devolving into anarchy. The Managing Board reminded the Campaign that its members should curry the favor of the administration, not antagonize it.
This sentence is where the Managing Board ran into trouble: "Van Dyne now admits that the chalking may not have been 'strategically wise' and says the campaign has since addressed it." The sentence makes readers assume that Van Dyne and the Campaign originally made a strategic decision to break the rules, instead of the problem being with one person, as the group claims. The editorial did not include pledges to that point by Van Dyne and another Campaign member.
Including that pledge wouldn't have meant the Board had to believe it was true. The editorial could have presented the Campaign's pleading and countered with their own evidence. But including their explanation someplace would have gone a long way toward being fair.
I don't think the editorial concluded that the Campaign strategically broke the rules, but that determination only comes after a very close reading.
Generally, here's how the lead editorial is constructed, according to Editor-in-Chief Michael Slaven: Executive Editor Herb Ladley puts an idea to as many members of the Managing Board as possible -- usually at least four, if not all five members. The Managing Board debates the issue, refines its points, tries to reach consensus and sends Ladley off to write the draft.
The Managing Board usually tries to reach consensus. They will run a position one person disagrees with, but for the most part they try to be unanimous. Sometimes this means not taking sides on an issue. Interestingly enough, one of the things the Managing Board has not reached consensus on is the issue of the living wage. The March 30 lead editorial is an example where the Managing Board found part of an issue upon which it could agree.
Ladley then contacts those affected by the editorial. He reports, filling in gaps and holes. Ladley interviewed Van Dyne and another Campaign member before March 30's editorial was written. Sometimes, the information given by the person contacted will change the Managing Board's opinion.
"We want to be as fair as possible," Slaven said. "If there's anything that they know that we don't know that might mitigate our opinion, they'll tell us that, and often-times it does."
Later, Managing Board members comment on and approve the draft. This doesn't mean that the people on the other end of the editorial are going to be happy with what's written, but it is a pretty responsible way of putting together the daily message.
Just as the Campaign should not want to antagonize University leadership, the Managing Board should try not to antagonize student groups, but rather go out of its way to give students latitude and have their views represented.
The true power of the editorial space on the newspaper page is not in denunciations. The power lies in the ability make suggestions and produce change for what the managing board sees as positive alternatives.
Lisa Fleisher is The Cavalier Daily's ombudsman. She can be reached at ombud@cavalierdaily.com
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking 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 | 3 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 | 4 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.
