Controlling the student public sphere
CARSON JEREMA
Uncharacteristic of the jealousy with which campus newspapers cling to their freedoms, University of Western Ontario paper the Gazette, prefaced its June 7 edition with: “We learned a hard lesson . . . about the power of the written word for good and bad and about the limits of good taste and free speech.” The Gazette was referencing the controversy surrounding their April Fool’s issue, in which one article appeared to not only lampoon campus feminism, but also write a satirical article about the fictional rape of a well-known women’s activist.
The joke issue sparked a flurry of letters and protests. A town hall meeting was held to censure the Gazette for what UWO president Paul Davenport called “unacceptable journalism.” Organizers campaigned for the editor-in-chief to resign. Davenport and the administration ultimately removed the Gazette’s independence, and student funding for the paper will now be contingent on the approval of the Board of Governors.
On the surface this appears to be exactly what the Gazette implies: a story about “the limits of good taste and free speech.” But that ignores a whole slough of questions.
Yes, we could engage in a discussion about whether or not it is acceptable to satirize rape. I could point to cultural references such as Todd Solondz’s Happiness where the rape of a young boy is presented comically, if uncomfortably. We could discuss whether or not such depictions encourage violence against women, and I would point to studies which conclude that there is little to no causal link between the glorification of rape in pornography and an increased desire to commit rape.
I could also point to the 40-odd times the Gazette covered women’s issues and events throughout the year to demonstrate that while the paper is often irreverent, it is not intolerant of feminist perspectives. We could have this engagement, but that doesn’t mean it would be useful.
Such discussions happen all the time at universities, from whether anti-abortionists should be allowed onto a campus, to whether a student should be allowed to argue for increased tuition, to whether admitting one voted for Stephen Harper is permissible. Yet these discussions never go anywhere.
The Gazette was simply on the losing end of a petty squabble for control of what might be termed the “student public sphere.”
It was not only UWO women’s groups campaigning. One of the chief organizers against the Gazette, Laurel Mitchell, was also the editor-in-chief of rival UWO publication, the Grapevine. Despite her proximity to the issue, Mitchell wrote at least one news story presented with a typical “neutral” voice, while failing to disclose in that same story her role in organizing against the Gazette. The Grapevine was also highly critical of the Gazette last year, arguing that it is “irrelevant” and that it does a disservice when it pokes fun at feminists.
In other words, the anti-Gazette organizers wanted the paper to emulate its rival, the Grapevine, a publication that promotes all the ideological niceties of “social change,” but is far less well-known (and read) than the Gazette. The Gazette’s own culpability in this game of “king of the university castle” is demonstrated by the fact that the woman who was, evidently, satirized was the one who termed the Gazette “irrelevant.”
The motivations of those who organized against the Gazette become even clearer when comparing their transparency to that of UWO president Paul Davenport. In addition to criticizing the joke issue, Davenport questioned whether the Gazette should be permitted to continue publishing their “frosh” issue, where the newspaper’s staff detail where to party, intended for new Western students. UWO is (in)famous for being a “party school,” an image administrators have been fighting for years. The controversy over the joke issue provided a nice in for the administration to tackle this perceived image problem in much the same way the Gazette’s student rivals saw an opportunity to assert themselves.
Universities are naturally parochial and myopic and they can often engender a narrow worldview on many who choose to accept the assumption that with being educated comes the responsibility of fighting for social change. Modern social theory dismisses the student of society who chooses to be dispassionate about his or her studies as a conservative anachronism.
Let me be clear, I am only referring to a minority of students, but it is this minority that often becomes engaged in the student-sphere perpetuating the image of the activist student and ultimately distorting average university students to themselves and the broader community. And there is constant pressure for these groups to maintain control. Having a progressive agenda allows many groups to justify their actions, no matter how petty, vicious or small. In the end this controversy was little more than a very successful public relations campaign.
Carson Jerema is a former Manitoban editor-in-chief.
