JOHN STUART Mill once said, "The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception of livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
The Cavalier Daily recently refused to print a clearly racist and patently offensive advertisement. By refusing to print the advertisement, The Cavalier Daily has worked to eliminate what Jefferson envisioned of the University: an epicenter of ideas - both pleasant and unpleasant - that could be debated and discussed in a civilized manner. The most effective way in which The Cavalier Daily should have responded to the advertisement should not have been to silence it, but rather, to develop an effective opposing argument to the advertisement. Developing a coherent opposing argument would work to change the hearts and minds of individuals who actually believe the racist views advocated in the advertisement.
However, because The Cavalier Daily has neglected to print the advertisement, the editors have stifled public debate about the issue. Rather than having an opportunity to learn from this civil discourse, many University students will continue to hold their prejudiced beliefs. This paternalistic sheltering of students from controversy has denied students the ability to have their fundamental views affronted by opposing and equally persuasive views. Students should not be led down the road of complacency because newspaper editors decide not to print anything controversial.
In the interests of journalistic integrity, newspapers should be an open forum for all thoughts and ideas, regardless of how inflammatory those views may appear to be. The free press ensures that all citizens have an opportunity to have access to views with which they agree, disagree and have never heard of before. The Cavalier Daily should not be a mouthpiece for only one political view - it should be accessible to everyone regardless of whether their personal views are in line with those of the majority. The minority opinion should always be protected from the wishes of the majority, which is why it is important to print the views of even racist beliefs. If newspaper editors continue to hold on to their majoritarian beliefs, it is frightening to think of what may happen when your strongly held beliefs are in the minority.
The Cavalier Daily maintains that it didn't print the advertisement, in part, because they "care about how our diverse readership views its community newspaper" ("Can't buy a free press," March 20). While this may be a valid concern, it raises many questions. If The Cavalier Daily held this same view during the Civil Rights movement, women's movement or any other controversial undertaking, would the newspaper decline to run those advertisements because they are concerned about offending people who disagree with the different views? Would they not run advertisements advocating an end to segregation because of their concern of the feelings for segregationists? We often learn the most when put in uncomfortable situations, which is why it's the responsibility of newspapers to allow all ideas to be heard: liberal, conservative, communist, democratic and even racist views. Though opposing views may make us uncomfortable, they will undoubtedly work to make us examine our own thoughts and ideas more thoroughly. After we look at our own views more carefully, we will either be able to defend them more vigorously, or we'll stop and understand the error in our ways. It's important to have newspapers promote this discourse in order for individuals to better understand their own beliefs.
Additionally, The Cavalier Daily editors require that advertisements in their newspaper contain "merit." However, newspaper editors are in no position to judge which ads lack merit. Whereas clearly some people believe this racist advertisement contains "merit," others believe that advertisements which advocate racial equality and justice contain "merit." What would happen if the newspaper editors decided that only advertisements which are in line with their own personal belief system contain "merit" and declined to print all other advertisements? Because clearly not everyone will agree which advertisements contain "merit," newspaper editors must not consider it when determining which advertisements to print.
Although The Cavalier Daily is certainly within its legal limits to restrict any viewpoint it chooses, in order to maintain a basic sense of journalistic integrity, it must make all views available for public discourse. Though the American Civil Liberties Union at U.Va. does not necessarily agree with the views espoused by the racist advertisement, we realize that it is important to have all views discussed and debated in a civilized manner in order to ensure no ideas are censured.
(Andrew E. Borchini is president of the University chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Sometimes it’s okay to fake a smile
By Alexandra Holmes | 14 hours agoI surrounded myself with people who were so enthusiastic about the University and its potential, that after a while, it was impossible not to feel their passion and their convictions rub off on me.
PARTING SHOT: Girl, what did you expect?
By Cecy Juárez | YesterdayAdvocate for yourself unabashedly, even and especially when you feel like you don’t belong.
PARTING SHOT: Revisiting old comments
By Claire DiLorenzo | YesterdayIn retirement, I am also trying not to be hard on myself — I don’t have to hold onto all the mistakes that I made as an editor.
