A Letter to the Editors
To the Editors and Staff of The Dickinsonian:
I want to thank and applaud you for the recent satirical insert in The Dickinsonian. We as community members do not need to agree with or find the articles funny to appreciate your creativity. Although some administrators initially threatened possible repercussions for what they mischaracterized as crossing the line from satire to defamation, the staff of The Dickinsonian went above and beyond to AVOID defamation. Satire is protected speech if a reasonable person cannot misconstrue the speech as a presentation of fact and there is no material harm to the person discussed. The creativity in the masthead, by-lines, headlines, articles’ text and images should make it impossible for even an unreasonable person to understand this as anything but satire.
Could someone actually believe that stories about a college official making students fight to the death, a blogging professor of the dark arts, or a kidnapping that goes unrealized are representations of fact? Or what about the all-too-real writers on staff like Mad Max, Liza Minnelli, or Jun and Tonic? Clearly “Unlimited Breadsticks” is a real name. I am amazed that you actually have John the Apostle and the Pope on your staff, too. I am no whiz at PhotoShop, but even I could make more realistic looking images than the obviously (and intentionally so) doctored images that you so carefully included.
This past Sunday the Boston Globe provided a satirical skewering of Donald Trump with the headline: “DEPORTATIONS TO BEGIN: President Trump calls for tripling of ICE force, riots continue.” Satire has a long history as a medium for illuminating and critiquing contemporary issues as well as making some people laugh. Satire is also a medium of expression that courts in the United States have repeatedly upheld as a constitutional right. It is important, especially at an institution of higher education, that we uphold and do not try to limit students’ free speech. Of course no right is absolute, and this includes the first amendment. Speech that incites violence or that defames are just two examples of limitations. I do not understand how anyone can reasonably read the recent issue of The Dickinsonian as anything but a clear example of satire.
Maintain good journalistic ethics, and please do not self-censor because of condemnation from people in positions of power. Continue to entertain us each April while educating us about our first amendment rights.
A Current Student (who is smart enough to not publish their name) • Apr 20, 2016 at 10:59 am
If I may point some things out (all based on my time dealing with the Dickinsonian as a former writer and full-time sympathizer):
-The editorial staff frequently meets with administrators for advice and feedback, and certain articles are censored, due in part to the fact that the paper is not allowed to publish anonymous articles or quotes. If they were, the Drinkinsonian would be the least of the administration’s concerns.
-The college administration does not want the paper to be an independent entity, as Dean Hammell suggests, because then the journalists would have complete independence from the administration’s oversight, instead of the quasi-independence that the College has constructed to prevent legal liability. Again, the administration prefers to have their finger on the pulse (or their hands on the neck) of the paper, but from just far enough away that they can claim independence from it should litigation arise.
-Alternatively, the college administration also knows that if the paper becomes truly financially independent, it will most likely die because of the high costs of running such a publication for a small readership pool. The school, and especially its Communications and Advancement departments, love to use the paper to gain the interest of alumni and prospective students. If it dies, then the student voice (mostly) dies with it.
-The Dickinsonian is currently under high scrutiny because of the political rawness of the campus right now, which has permeated down to the students. The same sentiments of the Drinkinsonians can be found in the Square. It isn’t just the Dickinsonian staff, and it isn’t a matter of being disrespectful or irresponsible. To suggest so not only shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what satire is, but is also a deeply shameful accusation from an administrator who deals directly with the preservation of student interests.
-There is a difference between someone being offended by a satirical piece because it is satire, and someone being offended by a satirical piece because they think it is truthful. The first instance is the point of satire. The second, as Professor Qualls notes, is unreasonable, unless of course someone already had an open wound and wanted something to rub in it to call more attention to themselves.
TL:DR – the administration needs the paper just as much as the paper needs the administration, satire isn’t serious, stop attacking students
Lizzy Hardison, Co-Editor in Chief • Apr 20, 2016 at 12:55 pm
I’d like to clarify one point in this comment. The commenter says that “The editorial staff frequently meets with administrators for advice and feedback, and certain articles are censored, due in part to the fact that the paper is not allowed to publish anonymous articles or quotes.” We do speak weekly with our faculty advisor, who is a former professional journalist and teaches a journalism elective at Dickinson. However, neither he nor anyone else “censors” our articles, and there is no rule stating that we “are not allowed to publish anonymous articles or quotes.” We could do that all we like; it would just be poor journalism. A reader can’t determine the value of a quote if s/he doesn’t know its source, and we can’t be held accountable for truthfulness if we obscure those sources. Anonymous quotes and articles would diminish our editorial integrity, and it’s for that reason alone that we don’t publish them.
Carol Ann Johnston • Apr 19, 2016 at 11:42 pm
Dear Dean Hammell,
Thank you for providing the background that informed your thinking when you wrote the current editors of the Dickinsonian about their satirical work in the Drinkinsonian. I am responding as one who shares many of the identity markers of those whom you suggest were offended by the satire, as well as a scholar of Christian poetry, a sometime target of the Drinkinsonian, and a writer of satire as a college student. I found the Drinkinsonian funny. I also heaved a heavy sigh of relief that the editors were not sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, or anti-any identity markers. They treated the targets of their satire as if they were fallible human beings, as we all unfortunately are. When we “pull our punches” for fear of offending individuals’ identities, we are in fact basing our behavior upon the very prejudices that we would hope to erase. Satire is supposed to sting. As a victim of satirical writing, I can say, alas, that the closer satire comes to the target, the more it stings. There is a chasm between satire and defamation; those who defame must intend malice. The 2004 case of New Times v. Isaacks may help to shed light on the line between satire and defamation in the United States.
The Dickinsonian as you note has had moments of success and moments of difficulty. I would think it unwise to lump all editors of the paper into a group. As the academic advisor of one of the current editors, I can say that she is thoughtful, poised, serious about journalism, dedicated to the college, smart, and has throughout the year striven to be the best editor of the paper possible. I would also think it unwise to point out a mistake made in this year’s paper as indicative of anything other than something that happens when students are learning. That the editors removed the article from the website suggests that they did, in fact, learn something.
If we are concerned about the editors’ liability for what appears in the paper, as you express, then I would hope that we can work with future editors to help fix what seems to be a situation created by misunderstanding and mistrust among various parties in the past. In terms of whether the paper takes money from the student senate— “one wonders why the Dickinsonian continues the take [senate money] in the name of journalistic freedom”—your argument seems to me to be reductio ad absurdum. All newspapers must be funded, and it is a part of journalistic ethics that the editors remain scrupulous about treating the source of their funding fairly within the pages of the paper.
I appreciate that you have a difficult job, serving different constituencies, many of them cranky and quick-tempered. I know that you have the best interests of the students as your primary concern. I also appreciate that the editors of The Dickinsonian are working hard to master the difficult craft of journalism, and of satire, which is fiendishly hard. I hope that we all can step back and take a breath or two and acknowledge that we are, after all, doing our best to learn and to teach. We have much to celebrate with this years’ senior class. Thanks to all for jobs well done.
Sincerely yours,
Carol Ann Johnston
Professor of English
Chair, Medieval and Early Modern Studies
Becky Hammell, Associate Vice-President of Student Leadership & Campus Engagement • Apr 19, 2016 at 9:27 am
Avoid the single narrative. During my undergraduate and graduate studies this point was made to me on numerous occasions, and yet it appears that members of our own community have fallen prey to this trap. If anything endangers our First Amendment rights, it is the unwillingness to consider situations from a variety of viewpoints, and most importantly to acknowledge that with the freedom of speech guaranteed under our great Constitution comes a tremendous responsibility. The biggest threat to free speech on our campus, comes from those who in their rectitude, feel that the majority opinion is THE opinion on any subject. Dissenters are marginalized, dismissed and considered to be less than.
Here are some things to consider about the Dickinsonian – things which have been overlooked or grossly exaggerated in rhetoric being heard on campus.
• In the mid-1990s, the Dickinsonian very publicly asserted its desire for journalistic freedom and freedom from fiscal oversight by the Student Senate which controlled access to funding for the paper. Since that time the Dickinsonian has been free of institutional and Senate editorial and fiscal constraint. The Dickinsonian receives a direct percentage of the Student Activities Fee (one wonders why the Dickinsonian continues the take this in the name of journalistic freedom) which is allocated without interference by Student Senate or other administrators of the college. Currently, there is no editorial Advisory Board, and the faculty and student life advisor, have only as much contact with the current editor or editors as they deem appropriate.
• Because the Dickinsonian has had independent editorial discretion since the mid-90’s, any potential litigation against it requires the paper, its editor/s and writer/s to seek independent counsel. We typically notify our insurance carrier and work with editorial staff and writers to provide the names of counsel in the area who have experience in First Amendment and defamation claims. The cost of litigation or mediation would be borne by the paper, and personally by the editor/s and writer/s. Advising editors that defamation can have a real impact on them is not asserting power hungry control or threatening them, but rather is aimed at keeping them from making a potentially expensive personal mistake.
• Since 2013 two claims of defamation have been levied against the Dickinsonian. In one instance, a “humorous article” about a student resulted in him having lost a job offer when his prospective employer Googled his name and came up with this in the online “spoof” in the Dickinsonian. The second, most recent instance, was a poorly researched and edited article that accused a national non-profit of being “fraudulent scammers” and “hackers” without actually interviewing anyone in the organization to get the full facts behind this assertion. It should be noted, that in both instances, Dickinsonian editorial staff made the decision to remove the offending articles from the website.
• Advisors should be communicating with groups they advise when there is a problem or something is not going well. And if they’re not, then they are not doing their job. As one of two advisors to the Dickinsonian, it is my responsibility to talk through problematic situations with the editors. While personal communication with the editors was characterized in this op-ed piece as “condemnation from people in positions of power” I would demur and say this is about helping young people learn to understand the power of their voices and language, and both the foreseen and unforeseen consequences of not tending to voice.
• Expressing concern about the content of the paper is the right of all members of the community, regardless of their rank or position. At the end of the day, the decision to stand by the paper and its contents is solely left to the discretion of the editors. No one administrator has the power or ability to remove offensive or factually incorrect articles, only to encourage current editors and staff to be more thoughtful and attentive to the quality of their work.
Finally, I would like to respectfully disagree with Professor Qualls’ assertion that it was “impossible for even an unreasonable person to understand this as anything but satire.” That statement shows an incredible amount of disrespect towards members of our community who disagreed with, were hurt by or offended by the Drinkinsonian. Individuals for whom this paper was not funny are dismissed and marginalized by this statement. The gay, female, Jewish and Christian students, staff, faculty and alumni who spoke their complaints are therefore even less than unreasonable. Surely this is not what we want for our community. I hope we can do better in the future.