Distaste is no reason to silence rational debate

Editor’s note: This is in response to the letter “Lobo’s self-censorship in vanity, not solidarity,” published in Friday’s Daily Lobo. The letter was in response to the Daily Lobo’s decision to censor its March 27 edition in a show of solidarity with the Central New Mexico Community College’s newspaper The Chronicle, which CNM administrators shut down March 26 after it published a “sex issue.” All Daily Lobo stories for that day ran online, but the printed edition, with the exception of an explanatory editorial, had nothing buts ads and X’s where content would have gone. The Chronicle was reinstated March 27. For details, see “CNM paper back on stands, staff rehired,” published in the Daily Lobo on March 28. In her letter, Karen DeLeewerk denounced the censored issue of the Daily Lobo and argued that the Lobo owes students an issue.

Editor,

Karen DeLeewerk, your decision to write to the Daily Lobo and complain about it was a poor choice. Not only is it ironic, it’s hypocritical, too. The very same rights you use to attack the Daily Lobo and its editor-in-chief are the ones you would give away. It is a paradigmatic example of Americans’ general stupidity when it comes to their rights.

You say the March 27 paper edition of the Lobo was an affront to students because the general student body was not consulted. You go on to claim The Chronicle is creepy, and the Lobo should do another issue to make up for the one that was missed because of its editor-in-chief’s egotistical need for journalistic glory.

Let’s go backward and start with the last claim. First, the Daily Lobo had all of the March 27 original content published online. So the staff did their job and don’t owe us another issue. Elizabeth Cleary and the staff of the Daily Lobo stood for journalistic integrity and freedom of speech. I would hardly call that irresponsible or arrogant. Taking a stand on the principles one believes in is courageous. I doubt anyone at the Lobo will seriously use this debacle for profit or gain. When a neighboring paper suddenly gets shut down and has its staff fired by a micromanaging administration that cares only about its image and career prospects, taking a stand — when the same could happen to you — is simply heroic.

As for your second point, I admit I have not read the issue of The Chronicle in question. But your outdated Victorian sensibilities are wrong and dangerous. Why shouldn’t we have a discussion on sex? We let politicians and large corporate media frame the debates and we get stuck with a notion of sexuality which, to paraphrase the French philosopher Michel Foucault, is microdisciplinary; we can have sex, but only if we have beautiful bodies and fit rigid roles.

Your distaste for the free expression of others’ sexual desires is counterproductive and serves to silence those voices which are required for a rational debate. If we classify certain practices as “creepy,” we provide an ideological backdrop that punishes those who are different. It is no wonder why teen pregnancy, the spread of STDs and higher rates of suicide among gay youth are still prevalent problems. It is because we let people like you, DeLeewerk, frame the discussion.

And lastly, your claim that the Lobo should have consulted us students before publishing is insulting. The notion that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are up for popular vote is terrifying to those who actually appreciate such things. Americans in general have a strange relationship with their rights. They want to live in the land of the free, but they do nothing to ensure that it stays free. They want to speak their mind, choose their beliefs, own what they want and love who they want, but they argue incessantly against those who disagree with them on such matters. If given the choice, the people in this country would vote away their freedom. So your argument makes no sense. How dare you proclaim yourself a protector of journalism and freedom of speech when you shy away from actually defending these ideals?

DeLeewerk, I would suggest you and anyone who agrees with you take the time and the money you waste on attending a university, and use it instead to relocate to somewhere more agreeable to your brand of close-minded, regressive, hateful ideology — say, North Korea.

Matthew Davis
UNM student