Last week the Emerald came under a barrage of criticism regarding a highly controversial piece of commentary from one of our columnists, Ty Schwoeffermann. The column, (“Watch out for ‘Jungle Fever,’” ODE Nov. 15), addressed interracial relationships, arguing that they cannot successfully exist in a society that is inherently racist.
As noted by the myriad responses we’ve received regarding Schwoefferman’s commentary, the column’s argument was represented poorly, lacking clarity and sound reasoning. Furthermore, many would discern his argument as ignorant and even racist views pertaining to an integral aspect of the advancement of racial relations.
As a columnist, however, Schwoeffermann felt compelled to share this opinion in his installment last week, and as the Commentary editor at the Emerald, I participated in the decision to publish his views with minimal intervention in an effort to maintain its sincerity.
As a result, some readers were outraged. We received more responses to “Watch out for ‘Jungle Fever’” than any other piece we’ve published this year. The column received 1,600 hits on www.dailyemerald.com, a long list of article comments and a Facebook group dedicated to its castigation. While the overwhelming response reflected negatively on Schwoeffermann and our decision to publish his column, I was encouraged by the depth and thoughtful criticism of the feedback.
The Emerald employs a staff of columnists from a range of ideological backgrounds and beliefs. For the most part, we all line up differently on social, economic and political issues. That’s why we’re here, to represent a spectrum of commentary for our readership. Last week, as a result of what that spectrum can sometimes encompass, we received some of the most insightful student commentary and letters I’ve seen while at the Emerald.
The Commentary page is meant to serve as a forum for the discussion of relevant issues, ideas and concerns in print. Last week Schwoeffermann, despite the message of his column, helped to achieve that aim more so than we have seen any time this year. I thank the people who wrote in response to “Watch out for ‘Jungle Fever,’” and would strongly encourage you all to contribute your ideas and opinions in the future.
To an extent, the Commentary page fulfills its purpose only with your participation. It is one facet of the Emerald that can be affected by the readers and can serve as a portal to the paper’s content and coverage. Sometimes it takes outlandish or unfounded claims on the part of one to elicit thoughtful discussion and commentary from the masses. In that respect, I think that Schwoeffermann’s column was a success. While it was easy to find flaws in his argument, to shake your head at the questionable relevance of his evidence, Schwoeffermann’s column struck a deep nerve in readers.
I know that Schwoeffermann read the feedback to his column with thoughtful consideration. He is an open-minded person who values the type of discussion that his statements fostered last week. Given the quality and potency of the commentary we received in response to “Watch of for ‘Jungle Fever,’” I can only imagine that Schwoeffermann has approached his argument in hindsight with more perspective. This is the beauty of commentary and the discussion of ideas in print. Through communicating our opinions in a public forum and striving to digest feedback with an open mind, we can only learn from each other and advance our collective understanding of our diverse ideas and experiences. Thank you for your feedback and please keep it coming.