The GPSS resolution was only about the offensive and tasteless manner in which the articles were presented--NOT the subject matter of the articles. The right of the journal to print whatever arguments and discussions it likes has never been in question. The free speech argument presented here is entirely a straw man to dodge the loud demand for an apology by the student body for being misrepresented by the Daily's editorial staff.

Of course free speech is and should be protected, both Federally and at the Daily. However, Hate Speech, though not illegal in this country, is inappropriate per UW codes of conduct. It is especially offensive when it's not even couched in a well-reasoned argument, but simply slanders my community with grossly distorted images and ideas.

I agree with all the comments.

As one of the resolution co-sponsors, I want to make something clear. The resolution is not about censorship, it's about poor editorial choices. Hate speech is not protected under the First Amendment. The pairing of the article with that image falls under the definition of hate speech.

An apology does not say to a portion of the UW community that their view is invalid. I completely disagree. What it does is admit that the editorial staff made a mistake, and they will do better next time. Why not run an apology, reprint the pro-gay marriage article, and ask John Fay (or someone else) to write a pro-Prop 8 article that is well-researched, well-written, and makes a factual argument. That's the best way to put the issue behind you.

Show us that you have high standards for The Daily. Don't just tell us.
-- Anna

Dear Sarah Jeglum and the UW Daily,

I read your response to the controversy surrounding John Fay's article, "Gay Marriage? Let's stop and think about this," and I thought it was necessary to send my thoughts on the whole ordeal after reading your reflection. First off, thank you for continuing to think about this issue. I have a lot of respect for you. I thought it was necessary to include my thoughts and I would like to share it with you and the campus community.

As for the upcoming ASUW resolution and the approved GPSS resolution calling for an apology (for the image chosen), or resignation of those responsible, I firmly do not agree with this tactic. However, I also believe it is completely within their power and their freedom of speech to hold the paper accountable considering they have the power to do so with the seat on the committee. I will not stand in the way of any resolution since I am not a member of the senate. I, and the Students for a Hate Free Daily, had the freedom of speech to hold a rally, and you and the paper have every right to print articles, and with your logic maybe even attach images that scapegoat minorities... but should you? Why the double standard? I don't think censorship is the message my group is promoting.

I know that examples of past issues with this topic may be unfounded with this situation but say the Daily wrote an article about black people and their right to live in recognized committed relationships in a point/counterpoint format. One side, agreeing they had the right to exist and pursue happiness, the other side arguing, rather illogically, that they are detrimental to society and people of color, not just black people, had a problem... Considering interracial marriages were illegal until 1967, between asians, whites, blacks etc, I am sure I could find such an article in The Daily's past. While, nothing is really wrong with this article because the Daily has every right to print it, it would be eerie to think of the Daily going one step further and printing an image of a noose on a tree, or a black person holding a sheep instead of their committed relationship partner. I am sure I could find this nonsense in conservative papers of the past that are not respected but the mainstream journalism community. Back in the 60's and even sometimes today the same arguments were made such as the sanctity of marriage will be ruined if blacks married white, or asians married whites, or interracial marriages would open the flood gates for "everything else." Come on now, we are in college. The slippery slope argument is a fallacy.

Of course, this is not the same thing, nothing from the past is really the same, but there is some contentions between interracial marriages and the battle over same sex marriage that is completely valid and applicable.

I look forward to engaging in this conversation,
Kyle Rapinan
Students for a Hate Free Daily co-founder

---

"Our intent was, and still is, to provide a forum for discussion between members of our community about an important topic we cannot ignore."

Ms. Jeglum,
I do not believe that your intent at publishing the offensive imagery associated with Mr. Fay's article was ever to create a forum for discussion or debate. The imagery was wrong period! Funny, you did ignore the imagery and it's use.
Mikael Steinberg
UWMC Roosevelt

Regarding the suggestions to meet with Ms. Jeglum, there have been previous face-to-face meetings with her, before the GPSS resolution in fact, in which she initially would not admit to making the editorial decision to print the image then later refused to apologize or admit any fault.
I have yet to see any evidence that any of the many attempts to persuade, educate, or communicate with the paper have had any effect whatsoever.

I agree with most of the comments here. As a complete aside, I would note to Anna B. that hate speech actually is normally protected under the First Amendment.

Again... I'm not pointing that out to make an argument for or against the John Fay article. Just trying to set the record straight.

To say that the Daily has been great about maintaining its journalistic integrity and upholds the ethics code as well as inaccurate and contrived to say the least. An apology from the Daily would not be out of the question because the piece did offend and hurt much the UW community. Offense and hurt may not have been the intention by the editorial staff, but in the end it did hurt individuals. Actions speak louder than words, usually, but I think in this instance it was both the written word that was hurtful and the action to publish said piece only made people upset.

Gregory J. -- I am not a law student, so I'll take back my comments about hate speech being unprotected by the First Amendment.

Observer -- if you read the articles online, as I do, they were not paired next to each other. Online readers saw only the image of the man and the sheep paired with the article, not the other image and the other article -- you had to click through to the link. I will note that The Daily staff have now changed this so the articles run side by side -- thanks for doing that.

No, GPSS is not sending a message to The Daily that it should not be a forum for the student population to express different opinions. In the long discussions our senate body has had about this, we have made it quite clear that our intent is not to censor The Daily.

What we want The Daily to do is to exercise better editorial choices. The pairing of an image of a man and a sheep with an article articulating the slippery slope argument sends a message to the GBLTQ community on our campus that their love and sex are equivalent to bestiality. With a different image next to the article, of say, a man and a woman, I don't think there would have been as vehement a reaction as there has been.

Also, and this has been said before, if you're going to make the slippery slope argument (and I agree -- the opposing side does need to be out there), you have to make sure that the argument you're making is factual. The author wrote that "there is nothing constitutional about gay marriage on a state or federal level." Marriage is not explicitly discussed in the US constitution, and one could argue that marriage is not a protected right. The author states that "homosexuality is more of an emotional condition." The APA removed homosexuality from its list of disorders in the 1970s, and most sociology and psychology research states that gender and sexuality are both scales -- both biology and environment affect whether or not one is gay or straight. If you're going to write an opinion piece about such a divisive issue, get your facts right.

The Daily needs to exercise better editorial choices, plain and simple.
-- Anna

To Sarah Jeglum,

If saving face is your concern, please realize that there is no honor protected by withholding apology. I see no conversation here. I see a growing anger and bewilderment at your refusal to apologize and at your continuing presence in the editor's chair.

Be Accountable.

Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:
*Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
*Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
*Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

-Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics

On November 25, 2008 The Daily printed “Gay marriage? Let’s stop and think about this” by John Fay and an accompanying graphic. The article appeared as part of a point-counterpoint on the issue of Proposition 8. One side presented an argument in favor of gay marriage and was accompanied by a cartoon of two women holding hands. Fay’s article presented an argument against gay marriage and was accompanied by a cartoon of a man and a sheep.
On December 3, 2008 the Graduate and Professional Student Senate (GPSS) passed Resolution 6.08-09 condemning The Daily for publishing the graphic with the opinion piece. The resolution read:
THAT, The GPSS officially requests 1) an explanation of The Daily's publication standards ensuring journalistic integrity about the selection of articles, the selection of accompanying images, and the layout for all sections of the paper including the opinions section, 2) sharing of any contemplated amendments to The Daily's publication standards ensuring journalistic integrity, and 3) an apology from the Editorial Board of The Daily, all to be printed in the same newspaper; or
THAT, The GPSS officially requests the Editor in Chief and the Opinions Editor of The Daily to resign.
Partially in response to this resolution, Sarah Jeglum, the Editor in Chief of The Daily, published an opinion on January 14, 2009 in which she explained The Daily’s publication standards, shared information about paper’s governing board, and stated that she refused to apologize to the community. GPSS revisited Resolution 6.08-09 on January 14 and the body decided to write this letter in response to Ms. Jeglum’s editorial.

The article itself also violates The Daily’s journalistic standards. The Daily claims to make “truthful, ethical reporting” and one of its top priorities, but the article in question contains several blatantly false statements. The article claims that, “homosexuality is…an emotional condition.” Psychologists and biologists, however, have refuted this stale statement of fact. The American Psychological Association has, since 1975, maintained that homosexuality is not a mental illness and has called upon psychologists to help remove that stigma. They state, “The prejudice and discrimination that people who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual regularly experience have been shown to have negative psychological effects1.” Peer reviewed research has also found that homosexuality correlates with many biological factors2 and is determined by conditions in the womb3,4.
The article goes on to say that, “the Christian concept of marriage predates any state-sanctioned licensing program.” However, marriage was a private contract between landowners until the churches adopted it during the reformation5. Again, this false statement evidences a lack of basic editing: no papers of quality allow their opinion pages to print such nonsense.
The article concludes, in part, that homosexuality is “a problem that needs to be dealt with.” Given the long history of violence and oppression the GBLT community has faced, a number of people in the community found this language threatening and hateful. It is a shame that the editors of The Daily were either unaware of how this language might be perceived or consciously chose to ignore it.
Despite the lack of truthful reporting, the hurt that this article has caused to GLBT students, and the damage it has done to The Daily’s community bond, the editorial staff has not issued an apology. The editor-in-chief has, in fact, refused to apologize. This last fact shows a lack of willingness to “be accountable” to the UW community.
With only one piece of The Daily’s code of ethics left unbroken, the call to “act independently,” it is no wonder that the student body has called for the resignation of members of the editorial staff. It is critical to keep in mind, however, that this outrage has not been spawned by the subject matter of the article in question. GPSS has defended the right of the newspaper to print both sides of complex issues and to represent views outside of the mainstream. What we have objected to is the editorial staff’s incontrovertible trampling of their own code of ethics and journalistic standards with regard to this piece and the accompanying graphic.

Considering the name isn't verified, I highly doubt that the comments from "Jake F" are those of the GPSS president.

Just a note to Jake with the GPSS. Yes, The Daily strives to print truthful and ethical reporting, but you must keep in mind that this was an opinion piece, which is completely different from a news story in every way, shape and form.

An opinion piece is not reporting, its opinion. Hence, the word "opinion". We're no different from any other respectable free newspaper when we run a news section separately from the opinion section.

To Allen W.:

Respectable papers fact check their opinion pieces as well. Yes, opinion pieces are different from news articles. No, that does not mean that respectable papers should print lies and falsities.

Also to Jake F, unfortunately, even though lots of research has been done to disprove the notion that homosexuality is an emotional condition, until a specific gene can be isolated, it is still a matter of opinion as to what causes homosexuality, and it is not a "lie" or "falsity" to allow John Fay's opinion on this to be printed.

There are several comments here and a few in the comments of the article itself that I find somewhat concerning. Specifically those who in so many words say "It's an opinion section, he can say whatever he wants." I will certainly agree that a person is entitled to believe whatever the desire. However, for the Daily, I find this to be a discouraging choice to make. I read the Daily, over other media, because from it I expect a certain level of integrity and scholarly performance. This is after all, a paper, produced on a university campus, targeted primarily at an education university level audience. Therefor I don't think that it is a huge stretch of the mind to assume that the "Opinion" section should be something more like "Informed Opinion". In the past I have seen some pieces there I may have strongly disagreed with, but the authors there offered references, study, or some academic aspect that could lend their argument credibility. The only reasoning I can find in the original article is faulty logic and 'gut' feelings.
Even then, the presented image does not even accurately convey what the topic is about. Homosexuality leads to people marrying sheep? I'll give some ground, there are people who choose to have relations with animals, and there are laws related to that. Yet, I do not see how the connection is drawn. A person wanting to marry a consenting adult of their own gender and being able to share the rights of a heterosexual couple, is somehow similar to a person wanting to marry a non-sapient, non-consenting creature of a different species? I hear so much talk about how marriage is a 2000 year old institution that has never been changed...to those that believe that, I implore you to pick up a history book, and you will find that the idea of "marriage" has only been as we know it for at best, 100 years, and even that is a stretch. Redefine marriage? We've done it all throughout history, what's one more slight change?

nick... I think we will all assume that you are tired or just submitting something quickly, and that you feel strongly about your subject... Maybe the quality of your writing is intended to be ironic?

Your missive is a bit of a red herring (which is to say a distraction that does not address the actual debate ongoing). The discussion is mostly about whether a cartoon of a man cuddling a sheep accompanying an opinion piece opposing gay marriage 1. equated homosexual relationships with bestiality 2. perpetuated stereotypes regarding gay people (e.g. that homosexuals are sexual deivants) and if so were consistent with originally unknown but since clarified journalistic standards at the Daily and consistent with acceptable speech on campus more broadly. There has been some discussion about whether the cartoon constituted hate speech, and whether hate speech is or is not Constitutionally or otherwise protected. (Hate speech is protected by the US Constitution, but it is not clear to me whether it is protected on campus per se, and I am not a legal scholar on the subject of speech). There has also been some discussion of the editorial standards of the Daily, and that is where the discussion of whether there should be a change in editorial staff based on decisions to print material that a) does not conform to the ethical standards of the Daily b) creates or contributes to a hostile environment on the UW campus for certain groups of people (which would be against UW codes of conduct and diversity statements).

The calls for resignation are not based solely in disagreements of opinion.

I personally find the calls for resignation somewhat excessive, but on the other hand, I find that the response of the editor responsible for the material in question to miss the point entirely. Invoking freedom of the press and simultaneously distancing oneself from responsibility by claiming that the opinion was from a UW community member outside of the Daily staff (implying release of obligation to meet journalistic standards) both claims journalistic protections and exempts the contributor from journalistic standards. That is contradictory.

But, yes, overall, we should protect free speech.

Christian makes a good point. And, not only that, the only threats in this whole shebang came from the gay community (not all of it, but definitely elements of it) after the piece ran.

Petra,

Since your brain appears to have taken a vacation of sorts, I'll disassemble your argument for you.

--No headline misrepresented anything. You can disagree with the picture if you'd like, but all it did was simply illustrate one of the main points made in the column.

--No stereotyping occurred. It was an opinion column. It was published because it was written by an opinion columnist in the opinion section.

--No mistakes were made. Far as I know, the story was grammatically correct and, despite what some think about homosexuality being biological, it wasn't contrary to anything that has been proven scientifically.

In summary, you're wrong.

I completely agree with Christian C. and with the editors of The Daily. John Fay's piece was an opinion piece explaining the pro-Prop. 8 view, or at least his version of it. The standards for opinion pieces are not the same as those for general articles, nor should they be. The accompanying graphic was made to highlight the slippery slope argument. As Christian pointed out, there were no misleading headlines, no stereotyping, no threats or calls for violence. In short, the editors of The Daily have done nothing that warrants an apology, much less resignation.

And no one was harmed by the opinion piece. Unless of course you choose to include being pissed off or offended under the umbrella of "harm". But if you want to go that route, then I and many in our community have been "harmed" by any number of articles, not to mention opinion pieces, appearing in The Daily over the years that promote radical politically correct viewpoints. The prevalence of these articles is deeply offensive to me and very hurtful. I feel hurt, I tell you! These articles, which constitute hate speech, make me feel unwelcome. It makes this environment on campus hostile to people like me. I don't feel safe letting people know who I truly am. There are more than a few community bonds broken right here. And where is the outrage from GPSS over this matter? We hear not a word from them, the damn hypocrites.

The more I see of the rantings of Jake Faleschini and his gang at the GPSS, the more clear it is that their true goal is to intimidate, if not censor, those with opposing viewpoints. For example, he offers such absurdities as "[M]arriage was a private contract between landowners until the churches adopted it during the reformation." What baloney! And he expects us to take him seriously? Contrary to his comments, Fay's opinion piece comes nowhere close to being sexual harassment. In fact it's hard to make a case that any article or piece printed in The Daily constitutes harassment, sexual or otherwise. (Look up the definition.) And "hate speech" is in the eye of the beholder. Just because you call it hate speech does not make it unprotected under the First Amendment.

The editorial staff rotates on a regular basis (annually?). Political radicals have dominated the staff in the past, and they will no doubt again do so in the near future. Let Jake & co. take comfort in that fact. In the meantime, give it a rest.

So marriage didn't exist in China or other parts of the world thousands of years ago? If you're going to be THAT nitpicky about a statement then why don't you take a look at the pro-gay marriage column which to that standard is just as incorrect and makes statements just as egregious. It's all just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. If we're holding columns to such a ridiculous standard at least be consistent. If the part about marriage was a factual error, then a correction would have been printed.

@llib: Oh, yes, regarding whether publishing Fay's piece "was a responsible decision in line with journalistic ethics", the answer is, Yes, it was. As Christian C. pointed out and I reiterated, there was no violation of journalistic ethics (an oxymoron, if you ask me) in publishing the piece.

And as long as you bring up the topic: having read the SPJ code of ethics, can you name any recognizable journalists who actually abide by the code? Because after looking back at the media behavior over the last year or so, I'm having a hard time coming up with any. Any well-known journalists at AP or Reuters that adhere to the ethics? Not that I know of. ABC? Nope. CNN? MSNBC? NYT? Don't make me laugh.

It seems to me that editorial staff at The Daily have done a far better job of keeping to the ethics code than any of the big names. I can only wish they don't become corrupted if and when any of them enter the "real world" of journalism when they graduate.

@jenn:

jenn says: "If the argument is that a code of ethics is something to aspire to, not something to be used as a bludgeon, I can see the merit in that. However, to argue that no-one anywhere adheres to a given code of ethics ergo the code is meaningless is not a valid argument." My comparison was a side comment, not an argument. But it points to the fact that Jake and company are not really concerned with SPJ ethics per se, since they are not passing resolutions about other cases. They are appealing to the code because they are scrabbling for any excuse to intimidate Fay and the editors.

jenn says: "The argument was articulated many comments ago that a cartoon depicting bestiality is indeed stereotyping homosexuals as sexual deviants." And I reject that argument. It may be true that many of those who place stock in the slippery slope argument, including perhaps many of the voters for Prop 8, do consider homosexuality to be deviant, but it does not follow that everyone does, and deriving the implication from the cartoon alone is fallacious. Frankly I expect more in the way of rational thinking from the readers of The Daily who are, after all, in a university setting.

jenn says: "Generally, if you are of the dominant class or status, it is usually not possible to invoke the categorization of 'hate speech' in comments made about you or your group." That's sounds a lot like the claim that black person in America cannot be a racist. I'm not buying it.

jenn says: "While it may or may not meet the legal definition of 'hate speech,' visually conflating homosexuality with bestiality sends a very strong message about acceptable sexual behavior and can be interpreted as hostile by members of under-represented groups." And what message might that be? That some people consider homosexuality to be deviant? Again, you cannot impute that intention to the author of the piece or the editor (see above). But it is undoubtedly true that some people, for example, those with traditional judeo-christian or muslim values, do consider homosexuality to be deviant. Is this the elephant in the room that we are not supposed to mention? I have no real idea how many of the voters in favor of Prop 8 hold this view. There are other reasons one can have to vote for Prop 8. But if such views turned out to be a significant factor, would that not be worth discussing in an article about Prop 8? And if it were discussed, how would merely acknowledging the existence of such attitudes be inconsistent with SPJ ethics or the UW commitment to diversity? To have a discussion about such matters is not at all the same as endorsing such views or somehow condemning the minority members of the community. We can't help it if some of them might interpret such discussion badly. You must not bridle free speech or press based only on the feelings of the most irritable.

A sincere apology that addressed the actual issue instead of a defensive maneuver that invokes freedom of the press (a red herring here) would have gone a long way. In all fairness, I have also said that I think that calls for resignations are a bit over the top as well.

Of course we are at an educational institution, so I think the most valuable contribution this whole controversy could make is some learning on all of our parts (editors, readers, commentators). In light of the quality of much of the discussion in this thread, I am not overly optimistic....