What was not addressed throughout the Oregon Commentator’s funding process is a larger discussion about the issue of privilege and how it relates to publishing responsible news content. As one of the students most frequently “targeted” by the publication during the previous school year, I feel inclined to write this.
Unlike ASUO Senator Toby Hill-Meyer, I did not feel my physical safety threatened as the result of what the Commentator published about me. That’s because for most folks, I fall within the following categories: white, male, and heterosexual. My social identity is represented, reinforced and legitimized by most media sources and can be loosely defined as the “norm” of this society. Because mine is an identity situated within this norm, I rarely feel insecure with this inherited privilege. Further, anything that potentially threatens my privilege would take recognizing that it comes at the expense of others, and “othering” what doesn’t reflect the norm — say, if you identify as homosexual, transgendered, colored, etc. This realization might also lead me to sympathize, or even identify with that Other, perhaps, altering my perspective or behaviors, instead of hiding behind terms such as “satire.”
There can be little doubt that the media — advertisement, films, television, music — is one of the most powerful socializing tools that exists within this society. From my own experiences with both the staff and content of the Oregon Commentator, it rarely deviates from this white,
heterosexist model of journalism.
In David Jagernauth’s Feb. 4 Emerald column, he writes, “Until we have mastered the technology whereby printed words are able to leap off the page and slap you in the face, no story has ‘directly hurt’ anybody. And even so, is ‘hurt’ now the standard for acceptable and unacceptable speech?” Yet, words do have an effect, whether “indirect” or “direct.” The power of the printed word disseminated across a large viewing audience does shape attitudes, and a campus publication does influence the campus it reaches.
So it is not unexpected that Commentator staff members would turn to the First Amendment instead of taking responsibility for their privilege. And as the microcosmic vanguard for white, patriarchal America on campus, the law fully supports the publication’s position. Of course, “feelings” aren’t considered within a system of law that prides itself on supposed
“rationality” and “objectivity.”
After all, if we were to consider feelings in our decision-making process, how it feels to have your privacy invaded might count. For example, how I felt when staff members of the Commentator carried on a debate about my physical appearance, or my choice of notebook paper in class on their Web site’s blog. Or, when responding to one of my articles about Valentine’s Day, one staff member referred to me as a “rock fucker.” We might also consider that one of the first times my writing was republished in the Commentator (volume 20, issues 7 and 8), they were juxtaposed with pictures of bound and gagged women. We might also question why a publication claiming not to promote hate speech entitles their quintessential, year-end issue “The Hate Issue.”
I hope for a continued presence of conservative and liberal journalism on campus. But the challenge for all concerned is to look beyond this spectrum, and even the rules themselves, to take responsibility for creating a safer campus and a more tolerant community.
Aaron Shakra is a former Pulse Editor for the Oregon Daily Emerald
