Might I suggest that we have historically dealt with these sorts of issues after the fact.  Such reactive practices, while necessary, are rarely sufficient to prevent similar actions from happening in the future. Neither are they sufficient to heal the damage and pain that has resulted.  I would suggest that we encourage serious consideration to the following:

1) Advise students who would be editors, members of editorial boards, or even writers on the student paper's take at least one course in Women's Studies, Black World Studies, Latin American Studies, or Sociology which deal with gender identity and prejudice, sexual harassment and discrimination, race and ethnic relations, ethnocentrisms and cultural bias.

2) The development of a mission statement and standard operating procedures for the student press/editorial board which will serve as a guide to help engage and empower the students in determining their responsibilities and reflective of #1 above.

3) Encourage similar processes for Greek system, Student Senate, and other groups whose activities may benefit from such information..



Rodney D. Coates
Professor of Sociology and Gerontology
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio 45056
 513 - 529 1590


-----Original Message-----
From: Professors for Peace [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Detloff, Madelyn M. Dr.
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 4:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [P4P] Some Concrete Actions --message from Dr. Christine Taylor

I'm not sure that this message got through to all of its intended recipients.  Please forgive duplicates if you've seen it already.

All best,
Madelyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Taylor, G Christine Dr.
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 3:48 PM
To: Detloff, Madelyn M. Dr.; Petrone, Martha C. Ms.; Berry, Jhan Doughty Dr.; Drushel, Bruce E. Dr.; 'Gay & Lesbian Employees at Miami'; 'HAVEN'; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Cc: Jackson, Rhonda J. Mrs.; Mosley-Howard, Gerri Susan Dr.
Subject: RE: Some Concrete Actions

Goodafternoon All:

Out of the office yesterday and I am just able to weigh in on this conversation.
Below is what was sent to Dr. Ron Scott in response to the letter set to the editor on the prior publication by amuzement.  Please read this carefully.


------ Forwarded Message
From: Tom Speaker <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 03:36:25 -0400
To: Ron <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: response to letter to the editor
To Dr. Ronald B. Scott and the Faculty Learning Community:
We appreciate your feedback on the September 25 issue of Amusement. However, after reading your letter, we can't help but feel that our intentions were completely misunderstood. The satirical articles that you considered to endorse "exclusionary practices" were in fact intended as inclusionary, anti-racist and pro-diversity. We also don't see this as a "teachable moment," but rather a "discussion moment" - an opportunity for individuals to engage in debate about the responsibilities of satire in relation to community.
On one item that you addressed, we do agree: The statement that "Most girls hit their prime at the age 14" was taken out of context from an anti-sexist statement that one editor had made the day before publication. Regardless of that staff member's intentions, it still resonates as questionable and in bad taste. One of our missteps over this past semester has been printing a higher rate of goofy, lewd jokes that have little to say, and we apologize for this.
In response to your question, "Do you really believe that human skin, especially black human skin, is an appropriate substitute for leather?" No, we do not believe that human skin, of any color, should be used as a substitute for leather.
But by focusing on the punch line of this particular piece, we feel you missed its broader purpose. While we at the Amusement have deep sympathies for environmentalism, this joke attempted to point out a difficult truth: In a globalized world, environmental protection is incredibly complicated and wracked with paradoxes. Indeed, stewardship of the environment is as much a social and cultural issue as a political one. Accordingly, this piece took a few friendly jabs at the hypocrisy of organizations like PETA and the suddenly "fashionable" nature of the green movement. Fashion seemed an apt symbol for discussing resource consumption, given that virtually all Americans (Amusement staff included) buy far more clothing than can be justified as necessity, often with little regard to their environmental and social costs.
Admittedly, this piece's fatalistic dark humor and racial content may not be to everyone's tastes, but the format certainly isn't new. For a similar work, may we refer you to Jonathan Swift's satirical 1729 essay, A Modest Proposal?
Environmental destruction, Western unwillingness for even basic compromise, and rampant resource mismanagement result in the death of thousands of people every day - and the majority of these victims are darker-skinned people from sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. So while literally using human bodies as natural resources remains sheer dystopic fantasy (as in the 1973 film Soylent Green, another influence), millions are trampled underfoot by our catastrophic appetite for an increasingly unequal piece of the pie. The time has come for those of us lucky enough to live in America to stop saying, "It's no skin off my back."
The listing of diversity under "Things that should be protested at Miami" was also entirely misinterpreted. We thought that being surrounded by a word such as "Eating," this would be recognizable. The joke there is not that diversity should be protested, but rather that some individuals at Miami, a school known for it fervent homogeneity, care so little for diversity and the perspectives of others that they might promote protesting it. And it's a swipe at narrow-mindedness that is backed by fact: At Ohio University in 2005, one student organization invited a speaker and advertised his speech's theme as: "Does diversity matter?" And their answer was "No."
One response to this might be that the wrong group of people -- e.g., white supremacists -- could read these articles, view them the wrong way and utilize them as a call to possibly violent action (however unlikely). Or even if this was not the case, some may still read these articles and feel personally offended. The logical solution, then, would be to avoid risking offending people - even with good intentions - because of the potential consequences. We personally find such a solution to be counterproductive, specifically to Miami University's Plan for a Liberal Education, which lists "thinking critically," "understanding contexts" and "engaging with other learners" under its objectives. Wouldn't it be "thinking critically" to look beyond these articles' face value? Wouldn't "understanding contexts" be analyzing the surrounding articles (such as those that were pro-Obama and anti-Palin), considering past issues, and realizing the publication's pro-diversity streak? And "engaging with other learners" would lead to comprehending each others' sense of humor and the motivations for their actions. Thus, in silencing liberal, satirical voices for sensitivity's sake, Miami University contradicts its own aims and fails to maximize its potential.
Tom Speaker, Editor
Liz Caskey, Assistant Editor
Annie Bilancini
Bobby Goodwin
Rachel Peterson
Liz Riggs
Daniel Smith
Annie Kim
Ben Philabaum
Adam Heckler

------ End of Forwarded Message



Now, I met with Susan and spoke to the editor of the publisher when the first run of this sort came out regarding the use of skin for shoes and comments about young women.   During the discussion there was the acknowledgement that there had not been close oversight given to this paper and that it would be forthcoming.  Where is the close oversight?  The letter above was sent to to the FLC on inclusiveness in response to their letter.

Letters are important... however, I believe there are some other questions to be raised and strategies which may be employed to get the desired result we seek... a newspaper that operates with journalistic integrity.

This paper is paid in part I assume--- if it follows most student newspapers---through student fees.  How is it that the many can pay so that a few can do what they want to do in the name of humor with no consideration of its impact on the community?  Who is the audience for this publication?  How large is the audience? What needs does it meet on the campus?  What needs go unmet (from a newspaper perspective) while resources are allocated to this publication?   As I raised in our meeting with the editor a couple of weeks ago while there is freedom of speech there is also journalistic responsibility / accountability?   What are the measures of accountability on our campus for the student newspaper?

 To that end... our students---all concerned students--- need to have a strong voice in this process.  As an example, the Diversity Advisory Council, part of student senate,  must be moved to get into this discussion.  They were reorganized this past year away from programming and more into policy and oversight...now is their chance.  Administrator to student discussions are important... however, I believe student to student conversations are equally important---particularly if in fact their fees pay for this publications.

There is also the other question that often comes up with these issues on a campus --- How diverse is the staff?  What type of discussions have they had around issues of inclusion which guide their approach to their journalistic responsibility?

For the forum, I would recommend looking at the Poynter Institute. http://www.poynter.org/  as a possible resource.

The Poynter Institute is a school dedicated to teaching and inspiring journalists and media leaders. It promotes excellence and integrity in the practice of craft and in the practical leadership of successful businesses. It stands for a journalism that informs citizens and enlightens public discourse. They have a focused area on diversity and ethics.

I will be at the meeting with Madelyn, Marty, Susan and the newspaper staf representatives.

I look forward to continuing the discussion and the development of more concrete actions.


Thanks

Christine


________________________________________
From: Detloff, Madelyn M. Dr.
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 11:24 AM
To: Petrone, Martha C. Ms.; Taylor, G Christine Dr.; Berry, Jhan Doughty Dr.; Drushel, Bruce E. Dr.; 'Gay & Lesbian Employees at Miami'; 'HAVEN'; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Cc: Jackson, Rhonda J. Mrs.; Mosley-Howard, Gerri Susan Dr.
Subject: Some Concrete Actions

Hi all,


Here are a few concrete actions that will be taking place in response to the amusement article:


1. Forum on Hate Speech and Humor: Where to draw the Line? -- or something similar. Date and time TBA.

 I've had an overwhelmingly positive response to hosting a forum, so I will work in coalition with several other groups to help organize this.  FYI, several lists have been part of our initial conversations, even though many of you will only see one list in the "From" header:  WMS faculty, Gay and Lesbian Employees, HAVEN, and Professors for Peace. I will continue to try to form coalitions with other interested parties.


2. Meeting with Dean of Students Susan Mosley-Howard, Sacha Bellman (Miami Student Advisor) and editors of Amusement and Miami Student. I will be there and I believe that Marty Petrone will be there.

3. Letter writing -- individuals and groups have indicated that they will write letters to the Miami Student.

4. Teaching opportunities-- As several of you noted, the amusement article could be used as an opportunity to get students to engage with issues that are undoubtedly going to surface as a result of the election and long presidential campaign, as well as the many anti-gay marriage initiatives on state ballots this year.


I'll keep you posted on what happens.

Best,
Madelyn


Madelyn Detloff
Director, Women's Studies Program
Miami University
126 MacMillan Hall
Oxford, OH 45056
(513) 529-4616