Editor's Note: Swarthmore and the Free Press Among the many issues that the debate over The Phoenix' s handling of the issue of printing letters to the editor and cartoons has raised is that of the importance of a free press. In my own article in this issue, which I initially wrote before the pamphlets became the basis of a massive campus debate, I show how the denial of history injustices is a bitter and destruction phenomenon. The denial of the wrongs of the past leads to a further and painful awareness of the event in question by all those not swayed by the lies of the denier. Fortunately, in the case of Holocaust denial, virtually everyone knows the horrific facts. This knowledge allows people to make reasonable judgement of the opinions presented. When they do so, people must realize that those opinions, when expressed in the form of editorial cartoons, letters to the editor, or columns (as in this publication) are the opinions of their author or creator. As such, they are opinions and are protected by the First Amendment as free speech unless they are libelous. At the same time, people have the equal freedom to exercise their own right to respond using the same methods. Unfortunately, the debate did not proceed in this manner at this college. Argument and attempted adjudication took the place of discussion and the issue changed from being one of Holocaust denial to that of the attempted suppression of dialogue and misuse of power. Besides its purpose of disseminating news and fueling discussion, a free press serves to keep those in power mindful of their actions by keeping its readers aware of abuses or attempted abuses of power. It is particularly ironic that the first proposal on which the Forum For a Free Press had to act was a request to take action against The Phoenix for printing an editorial cartoon. That session as well as Laura Barandes' distribution of packets of information as an observer to the Board of Managers have led to a vigorous and acrimonious debate in which my fellow Editor-in-Chief, Brendan Nyhan, has been vocally involved. For this reason he has recused himself from determining whether to publish articles on the issue in this publication. I would like to remind readers that each article in The L-Word represent the views of its authors, rather than my own, although I have chosen to print them. While the views may well be controversial, this controversy is a consequence of having a free press that is free to report and scrutinize. In my opinion I not only believe I have done the right thing in printing Nyhan, Kello, and Runkle's articles, I feel that it is my responsibility to do so. Throughout history, the press has served as the voice of people who do not have the political power to make their views widely known or accepted against those who abuse it. It has spoken against tyrrany when individuals were unable to. The scrutiny of the press helps to raise awareness among the community it serves to ensure that everyone is treated fairly, regardless of the friends they may have in high places. Not only should the press remain free and uncensored, it must remain so in order to protect those without powerful friends.
|
Home | Archives | L-Word by Email | About The L-Word | Staff | Feedback