Several questions to everyone who objected to The Weekly’s article on Case Day:
- When has censorship ever been considered just or effective?
- Do you honestly believe that if The Weekly does not print an article on Case Day, this tradition will weaken or end?
- Do you really believe prospective students are naïve enough to believe that binge drinking does not occur at college?
The Weekly article spoke to the reality and ugliness of Case Day, quoting SPPD Chief of Police Mathew Peters, PLEDGE Council President Ethan Marxhausen and Director of Campus Safety Ray Thrower. It listed the dangers inherent to this “tradition,” such as alcohol poisoning, overexposure, sexual assault, violence, vandalism, as well as legal and academic consequences. What more could The Weekly have done to expose the possible consequences of participating?
All of you have every right to denounce something as ignoble as Case Day, but your self-righteous vitriol calling for some sort of outraged polemic from The Weekly or even censorship is patently absurd.
To Professor Dugdale:
- How can you possibly compare the act of consuming 24 beers in 24 hours to something as monstrous as rape?
Aaron Hiltner ‘10
It is not the publishing of the article that I, as an alumni, have a problem with. Its that it was published on the front page during scholarship week. That is not how I want Gustavus represented to future gusties. Maybe the writers of The Weekly can consider that when it comes up next year. And to answer your third question directly, it is not that we feel prospective students are not aware of it. Its that we shouldn’t be selling our school that way. Everyone knows binge drinking happens in college. But it is not something a parent wants to see when visiting a school. Believe it or not, parents have a say in where their children go to school.
Aryn,
First, my letter was a response to people who were calling for The Weekly to completely censor itself regarding Case Day by not publishing a story about it. I’m glad that you don’t object to the publication of the article.
I disagree, however, with your objection about the front page. Your essential argument is that you do not like people associating Gustavus with Case Day and that it makes Gustavus look bad to prospective students. I highly doubt this front page is as influential as you think. Give prospective students and parents some credit; I imagine they are able to critically consider many different factors about a college and do not make such a major decision based on one image in a college newspaper.
But let’s assume there are some people who upon seeing a picture of a beer, would be offended, think poorly of the school, and then make a major life decision based upon a single image. Even this scenario is not a justification for censorship. There can never be a justification for censorship. Case Day is a major issue that we need to talk about. It deserves to be put on the front page both so we can start a dialogue, and because it reflects an unfortunate, but real, aspect of life at Gustavus. You cannot bury an issue in the back pages of a paper and hope it will go away.
Even denying the article on Case Day the front page is a form of censorship, because it denies the reality of how widespread this event is. The Weekly is charged with reporting the environment we inhabit at Gustavus. It is not required to accommodate to scholarship week, social conservatives, or anything else. The Weekly is not a public relations branch or a recruitment tool for Gustavus. Just because you disagree with what has been reported does not mean it should be downplayed or censored. By your logic the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times should downplay or censor images and stories that make the U.S look poorly to the world. This is dangerous to myself and many others. I urge you to consider the quote (falsely) attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Moreover, suggesting that we bury major issues at Gustavus from prospective students is unfair and deceitful to those students. We have a moral responsibility to accurately represent Gustavus. Case Day is an unfortunate part of campus life, but it is real and prospective students deserve to know what they will be investing 160,000 dollars in. As intelligent, critical people, they should be able to understand what Case Day is, and they should be able to conclude that for the most part, Gustavus is a remarkable intellectual community, as well as a bastion for free speech.
It’s funny how many say journalists have agendas, or thoughts already in their minds. The Weekly serves Gustavus and its students. Their objectivity is commendable. Shame to those who value the college’s reputation over the safety of students, and making aware the dangers of binge drinking. Prospective students have a right to know that Gustavus has such traditions–that it’s reputation is just that–a reputation.