By
Ivan Vukovic
January 28, 2009
Yesterday’s ASUW Senate meeting featured a forum with Daily Editor-in-Chief Sarah Jeglum, in response to the continuing issue of the controversial opinion column by Daily columnist John Fay and the accompanying image that ran in the newspaper last quarter.
Photo by Cliff Despeaux.
The Daily’s Editor-in-Chief Sarah Jeglum speaks during yesterday’s ASUW Senate forum, addressing concerns arising from a pro-Proposition 8 opinion column published last quarter.
The address was in response to a recent Graduate and Professional Student Senate (GPSS) resolution requesting a published apology from the editorial staff of The Daily, or alternatively, the resignation of both the editor-in-chief and the opinion editor.
“Over the last two months, I’ve learned a lot,” Jeglum said at the meeting. “Everybody at The Daily has.”
Jeglum spoke of the time period initially following the backlash to the printing of Fay’s article, noting that her controversial decision to not apologize for the story was difficult to make.
“I considered apologizing,” Jeglum said. “It took me a long time to process and figure out what to do.”
She was later asked why she hadn’t apologized following the GPSS resolution.
“An apology at this point would just sound forced,” Jeglum said.
Regarding the issue of the graphic that accompanied the story, which many considered to be far more controversial than the written article itself, Jeglum said the picture’s reception was not in line with its original purpose.
“If I had the choice to run the illustration again, I would not,” Jeglum said. “The intent of the cartoon was far from how it was actually received.”
Igor Cherny, an ASUW senator in attendance, asked Jeglum about the purpose of the article and said he felt a forum was not provided for students who disagreed to respond.
“There were eight pages of letters to The Daily published the following Friday,” Jeglum said, referring to The Daily’s weekly Free Speech Friday section.
She also added that the article stirred a lot of online discussion on The Daily’s Web site.
Cherny has been following the development of this controversy and acknowledges the complexity of the issue.
“Everybody always talks about what a tolerant community UW is,” Cherny said after the forum. “But something like this tests just how tolerant we really are.”
When asked why Fay hasn’t written a follow-up piece further elaborating his argument and responding to the criticism, Jeglum said, “If he wants the opportunity to do so, he has it.”
She wrapped up the forum by reiterating her choice to run the article, answering a question about how controversial subjects would be treated in the future.
“If you don’t know that those opinions exist, you’re not going to be able to address them,” Jeglum said. “I’m not going to censor the paper.”
Response from the audience varied, with some students still upset with the issue at hand.
Matthew Zemek, a junior, expressed his disapproval of Jeglum having yet to apologize for the article.
“The article was clearly offensive,” Zemek said. “The issue is not as complicated as she is making it seem.”
ASUW committees are still in the process of adapting the GPSS resolution, but it has not yet reached stages of discussion at Senate meetings.
Jeglum was asked to speak so the ASUW senators could make a more informed decision regarding the legislation.
“It’s Sarah’s decision to decide what she does,” said Gerald Corporal, the ASUW’s director of community relations. “She should take consideration of GPSS and ASUW’s motions and requests, but ultimately, it’s her call. I think she addressed the issues tonight well.”
Reach contributing writer Ivan Vukovic at news@dailyuw.com.
15 Comments
#1 who cares?
on January 28, 2009 at 12:52 a.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Stop martyring these idiots.
Sarah Jeglum and Natalie Sikavi are incompetent hacks that are too stupid to realize that being an editor entails deciding what is worthy of publication and what isn't. Not all opinions are equally valid. If that isn't blatantly obvious, you are a moron.
John Fay is a right-wing scrotum sack. He can choke on a fat dick for all anybody cares, and I hope he does.
Fuck 'em, move on. Bigger issues to deal with.
#2 apalled-- go daily!
on January 28, 2009 at 2:04 a.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
wow. so whoever made that comment was way more hateful and uncalled for than the fay article.
#3 joan l.
on January 28, 2009 at 8:05 a.m.(Portland, OR | Unverified Name)
To Who cares?:
You should - about cleaning up your language, thought processes, civility. You chill with your ranting. Very immature. I hope you do not represent the UW.
#4 who cares #2
on January 28, 2009 at 8:29 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
go who cares #1. the rest of u grow some thicker skin. free speech right? and since when did cussing mean you are immature. and joan, i HOPE u don't represent the UW.
#5 Jason P.
on January 28, 2009 at 10:56 a.m.(UW Campus)
Update: after the forum last night a committee did review the legislation. A number of guests were present, including members of GPSS, some ASUW senators who do not sit on the committee, and a person from The Daily.
The voting members of the committee decided to remove the part of the resolution calling for resignations, so now the only request is for an apology. The legislation will go in front of the full Senate at a future meeting, at which time anything could change.
If you are interested in learning more about the debate behind these issues, you should definitely check out "Students for a Hate Free Daily," which represents the primary response by the student body. (The best place to learn about them is on their facebook group.) Their views are widely shared by ASUW senators, and have helped shape discussion of this issue.
If you want to learn more about the views of GPSS, you can read the resolutions they've passed at http://www.gpss.washington.edu/documents
#6 Jason P.
on January 28, 2009 at 11:06 a.m.(UW Campus)
Oh, and on the topic of hateful discourse...
Last night, a police canine officer came to the Senate meeting. Because people at The Daily, and from what I understand THEIR FAMILIES, have gotten death threats about this.
Things have gotten to the point that the cops have come to make sure we don't *literally* kill each other over this.
But it made me very proud last night when senators asked very tough, very direct questions, but still maintained a reasoned, respectful discourse. This just goes to show that you don't have to curse and threaten to make your point heard. In fact, if you don't, people will pay more attention to you.
#7 Matthew Z.
on January 28, 2009 at 12:31 p.m.(Location Unknown)
"Matthew Zemek, a junior, expressed his disapproval of Jeglum having yet to apologize for the article.
'The article was clearly offensive,' Zemek said. 'The issue is not as complicated as she is making it seem.'"
This is me being vain, but I want to clarify what I meant here. I didn't mean for those two statements to be paired as they were. The second part of the quote was in response to this Jeglum saying that “It took me a long time to process and figure out what to do,” specifically saying that this was why she did not issue an apology prior to the GPSS resolution. I find that unlikely. It was clear that this was a controversial issue, and equally clear that the Fay article was held to esentially NO factual standards. This represents a blatant collapse of editorial responsibility.
The first half of the my quote was referring to the fact that there were NO letters supporting the Fay article submitted in time for the following Free Speech Friday paper, which ought to have made it abundantly clear that John Fay wasn't speaking even for conservatism, he was speaking for radicalism. As a general rule, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not an utter dearth of evidence.
The first response here ("who cares?") is just someone trolling, we'd be best off ignoring it entirely.
#8 Jono
on January 28, 2009 at 1:48 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
I definitely empathize more with Ms. Jeglum after last night's forum, but (and this is a large but) I think she is entirely wrong to continue to refuse to give an apology.
When it all boils down, Ms. Jeglum made mistakes, her Opinion Editor made mistakes, and so did whoever was responsible for that page layout. Mistakes require an apology and change in behavior.
Ms. Jeglum and the Daily are working towards changing their behavior. She said that they are working with the Q Center to give the Daily staff more training on diversity and queerness and they are reviewing their policies, but that is not enough.
Making the changes Ms. Jeglum is making tacitly admits that there were mistakes made and that something should have been done differently. An explicit admission would be better.
Lastly, one comment Ms. Jeglum made last night almost had me spluttering. She boldly declared that she would not censor the Daily when asked how she would prevent this kind of thing happening in the future.
No one is seriously asking her to censor the Daily. People are asking her to <i>edit</i> the Daily. Editors should look at a piece and make sure that it stands up on its own, that it meets the standards of that particular paper, and that it merits being printed.
There is a reason the NYTimes claims it's "all the news that's fit to print." There is news, and other articles, that are <i>not</i> fit to print. John Fay's article was one of those articles that is not fit to print.
You can express the opinions he did in an intelligent manner. You can support those opinions with facts and studies. John did not do that, and his editors should have told him to go back and get that information.
No one wants Ms. Jeglum to censor the paper. We want her to do her job.
#9 freedom of speech
on January 28, 2009 at 8:42 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
What happened to freedom of speech and UW being "open" to everyones thoughts and beliefs? Just because you don't believe the same things Fay does, doesn't mean he or the Editor in cheif should apology for having an opinion. Fay has the same rights as everyone else and should not be getting threats from people who disagree with him. Hes entitled to his opinion.
theres 2 sides to everything, and not everyones going to agree on the same side.
#10 no that is not how tolerance works
on January 28, 2009 at 8:43 p.m.(Lakewood, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
“Everybody always talks about what a tolerant community UW is,” Cherny said after the forum. “But something like this tests just how tolerant we really are.”
aaaaaaaAAAAAAAAA
#11 Jono
on January 28, 2009 at 11 p.m.(Everett, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
#9 Freedom of speech does not equate to being given a podium from which to speak.
That's the first point. Mr. Fay can have any opinion he wants to have and can share them with whomever he thinks will listen, but he is no where guaranteed the right to have his opinions printed and disseminated widely throughout the community.
Secondly, as I said before, no one is seriously asking for Jeglum, Fay, or anyone else, to apologize for their opinions (or those Mr. Fay put into his column). What people want apologies for is the offensive image and the poor editing choices made by Jeglum and her Opinion Editor. Editors are supposed to review content to make sure that it passes muster. Mr. Fay's piece should not have made it past the Opinion Editor in the form that was finally printed.
#12 Reader
on January 29, 2009 at 2:26 p.m.(Tacoma, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
The Daily published 8 pages of letters responding to the John Fay opinion piece on Monday, December 1. As readers didn't have time to publish in the Friday Free Speech section, Sarah Jeglum and Natalie Sikavi decided to run all letters received on Monday.
The Daily has also left - uncensored - the (now) 653 comments that were left on the John Fay opinion piece.
While some, like Jono above, may feel that an editor should edit content that may be displeasing to some of the community, that "edit" is censoring opinions. The opinions expressed by John Fay are the same opinions expressed in state and federal legislatures regarding gay marriage.
The Daily providing an open forum - which includes allowing the public to freely respond through online commenting and in letters to the editor - is of great public service to all, no matter where your opinions may be.
If one disagrees with Mr. Fay's opinion, (and what appears at this time to be the majority of voting Americans according to DOMA and state laws prohibiting same-sex civil unions and marriages), having it exposed in public allows others to point out what they believe to errors.
Sarah Jeglum's commitment to not censoring the opinions of students (both those who write on staff and those who respond through online commenting and letters to the editor) is admirable.
#13 Jono
on January 30, 2009 at 6:01 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
To the Reader @ 12,
Did I say anyone should edit away the content? No. In fact, I said that you can have the opinions Mr. Fay expressed intelligently. Ms. Jeglum and Ms. Sikavi should have done their jobs to make sure that the piece they printed met the appropriate standards.
Mr. Fay's piece was poorly worded, used circular logic, and needed someone to comb through it with a red pen. It also needed some support. There are studies out there that support Mr. Fay's premises, he should have quoted them. His piece was not fit to print in the state it was in when it was printed.
I did not ask for anyone to censor his article, nor do I think it should be censored. Please read my posts again.
#14 not taking sides
on February 2, 2009 at 6:07 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
@ jono,
yes, editors should hold columnists and reporters to a high standard, but saying that ms. jeglum and ms. sikavi should have not run the piece because it was poorly worded, used circular logic and needed someone to comb through it with a red pen seems a little silly. i'm sure there are many other articles that run in the daily, the stranger, the seattle times and the new york times that could all stand to use a bit more editing, but if you've never worked at a paper, i could understand your thinking that time isn't an issue. this is a publication that comes out daily, run entirely by students who attend class at the uw. they don't even get in until 4 pm every night to begin working on the next day's paper. i'm sure if they had a week to discuss each word in fay's piece, they would have done so. but for you to assume it just went from fay's mouth to the page without any examination is ridiculous. mistakes are made at every level. ms. jeglum even admitted that if she had it to do over again she would not have ran the accompanying illustration to fay's article because of how it was (incorrectly) interpreted. but what would an apology do now? if she apologized she would be silencing a portion of campus who DO agree w/ john fay, and as the editor, that is not her job. it is up to the students to stand up for what they think is right. i think the uw community lives in a bubble and forgets that there are people who oppose even the idea of gay relationships, and we need to take action rather than demanding an apology from the figurehead of a student publication. let's get out there and educate the john fay's of the world rather than punishing those who open the forum for discussion.
#15 Jono
on February 4, 2009 at 12:25 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
@14
You set up two opposing straw men in your argument. First you say that they don't have enough time to review each article, then you say that I assumed that it went straight from Mr. Fay's mouth to the page. You can't have it both ways.
The truth is that it is somewhere in the middle. The article in question was one in a series of point counter point, Mr. Fay had to coordinate his point with the other author as well as with the editors. It could not have been something he slapped together the night before press, and even if it was, his Editors should have told him to go back and work some more on it.
You are right, there are articles that make it to print when they should not. That does not excuse doing it again. Poorly written articles should not be printed, just based on the idea that a paper should strive for a certain standard. Mr. Fay's piece did not need "a little more editing" it needed a lot more work. Just because it is his opinion does not mean it does not have to be well written.
Also, I have worked for a paper before. I was a copy editor, and later an opinion editor. It was my job to review articles like this.
Lastly if Ms. Jeglum were to apologize for how she handled this situation, for the easily misinterpreted image, or for how long it took her to realize what the correct course of action was... how would any of that silence any part of our community? She'd not be apologizing for Mr. Fay's piece, his opinion, or anything that was said... merely for how the situation was handled.
Post a comment