As this week wraps up general elections for various councils and honor referenda, we continue to see our University paper crank out opinions advocating for and against various issues. This outburst of democratic discourse is necessary for the cultivation of dialogue within our community, doubtlessly. But how can we, as readers, writers and thinkers, expand it even further and make its scope broader?
My last column was concerned The Cavalier Daily’s objectivity and writing about political topics. In it, I advocated for the paper’s employees to “[tread] the line between the promotion of facts and opinions” as carefully as possible. The temptation to express one’s viewpoint over deliberately engaging an audience can be great. Yet we must adhere to objectivity. We must think through our own perspectives and arrive at some greater understanding — ideally, at least.
What has been great about this week’s Cavalier Daily coverage has been the paper’s willingness to provide opposing perspectives on important issues like the honor referenda. Readers have been able to peruse, for instance, an article decrying the current single sanction system and arguing for a multi-sanction option instead. In response, two more guest columnists wrote a rebuttal, trying to advocate for the sanctity of the current procedure and inspecting the claims made by the former authors.
I applaud The Cavalier Daily for covering all possible bases. It’s integral to bolster as many voices as possible when it comes to such important issues at our University. How, though, can this be strengthened more? What other voices and perspectives can be woven into the democratic fabric that is the newspaper here, and where can they be found?
Let’s continue with the examples already presented: those of the Honor vote this week. We’ve received articles from those looking at the system from the outside in. These authors are simply advocating their beliefs, albeit with both factual and opinionated points. But what of those who have no stake in the argument — who can provide no bias, but instead an objective standpoint? Or, for instance, those who have been convicted under the current single-sanction procedure? These are the types of angles that can broaden contentious subjects like Honor even more.
My predecessor wrote about this somewhat in her piece on increasing the amount of guest columns. The same is appropriate here regarding issues that matter to the greater University community. If The Cavalier Daily can expand the number of outside voices — those otherwise ignored or marginalized by larger ones and organizations — then issues such as honor can be examined from a wider spectrum. While the paper has no responsibility itself to trend in one direction or another, providing readers with those directions is the ideal for making informed choices in elections as important as these.
Sasan Mousavi is the Public Editor for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at publiceditor@cavalierdaily.com or on Twitter at @CDPublicEditor.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: The truth about nuclear power in Northern Virginia
By Paul Kurtzweil | 11 hours agoYoungkin is trying to entice data centers to move to Northern Virginia for his own political gain, and presenting this to the taxpayer as a service to the citizen is deceiving.
CASTAGNO: One year later — a local zoning ordinance proves its worth
By Conall Costagno | 2 days agoIn its current situation, Charlottesville is an early adopter of the upzoning movement, giving the City the unique opportunity to act as a shining example of its benefits.
RASHID: Club exclusivity hurts the student body
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | 5 days agoWe need to reconsider how we think about extracurriculars — this hyper-competitive and exclusive culture which implicitly frames clubs as resume-padders must be stopped.
