More on state-funded porn
Some updates on the use of public dollars to support UM’s explicit “sex columns” –
* I have confirmed that the UM Journalism School does award academic credit to students who work on the Montana Kaimin, the publication involved. This strengthens UM’s responsibility to ensure that the paper meets journalistic standards. I have been receiving correspondence suggesting that the sex column is not an isolated example of the Kaimin’s irresponsibility.
* The U.S. Supreme Court has held that public secondary schools using student newspapers for educational purposes may regulate content (although not necessarily point of view) for those purposes. Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., The same rule may apply to public universities, although of course the fact that the students are older may affect the content decisions.
* Today’s Missoulian editorializes in favor of the Kaimin. You can read it here. The editorial states, in part, that “a portion of the Kaimin’s operating costs . . . is covered by student fees. Not taxes. Student fees.”
* But whether support come from items denominated “taxes” (as, indirectly, some does) or “student fees” is a distinction without a difference. In all but name, those fees are state-imposed excise taxes on education. Legally, they are under the control of the Board of Regents, an executive agency of the State of Montana.
* The Kaimin has at least one faculty advisor. One might ask why the advisor(s) have not tried to introduce some maturity into the paper. Perhaps they have, and have been ignored.
The still-unanswered question here is why hard-pressed students and their families (not to mention the taxpayers) should be forced to support this – or the lobbying and other causes selected by a handful of student politicians.
The First Amendment is about your right to speak and print what you wish with your own resources.
It is NOT about violating the free expression rights of others by forcing THEM to pay for it.
What if the majority of students don’t find it offensive? Would the minority still rule? It appears that you, and Professor Juris in her email below, are bearing down. You mean to enforce your will on the newspaper, and in true Orwellian fashion, are saying that censorship is really freedom. Nicely done.
As discussed in Gregg’s piece down below, it’s about where a line should be drawn, and community standards ought to prevail. It could be that community standards are not to your liking, but that is no excuse for bringing the man down on them. What you and she are doing feels oppressive and overbearing.
And by the way, others below have used the word “puritan”. I believe the correct descriptor is “Victorian”.
Mark T. -
I really don’t care how you label it.
MY my issue is one of freedom: To the extent practicable, the freedom of ANYONE — minority or majority — from being forced to fund points of view he or she opposes. There simply is no good reason for forcing anyone to pay for those sorts of activities, including lobbying. They are quinessentially First Amendment activities, which means government should get its thumb off the scale and butt out.
BUT if you insist on having government involved, then government has the right — indeed, the duty — to control how government money is spent. President’s Dennison’s comment, as reported in the Missoulian, is right on point: “I don’t want to get involved in a situation of censorship. I’d rather be involved in a discussion of taste and judgment.”
I don’t care how you label it either. You mean to have your standards become community standards, and call it “freedom”.
People are fascinating, never saying what they mean, though I know you mean what you say.
Rob writes: “MY my issue is one of freedom: To the extent practicable, the freedom of ANYONE — minority or majority — from being forced to fund points of view he or she opposes. There simply is no good reason for forcing anyone to pay for those sorts of activities, including lobbying.”
I couldn’t agree more as that freedom is under pressure in many areas of our societal fabric.
Mark T writes: ‘You mean to have your standards become community standards, and call it “freedom”. ‘
Mark’s point hits home with me as well as agendas are conveniently sheathed in wrappers of misdirection such as the Card Check bill that is anything but free choice, especially after the new associative group hits its member with mandatory fees.
I reconcile the two like this: Hypocrisy isn’t all bad while we seek to balance powerful interests. We are imperfect as people and the institutions we create.
Transparent agendas are always useful.
Isn’t everyone forgetting the original purpose of this series of posts: The use of government money to fund a point of view? If you accept money from any source for your product (government, private donors or subscribers) aren’t you responsible for acting in accord with their guidelines, or risk losing the funding?
Not that that is a bad thing. But it is not “censorship” to pull money for the NEA when they support something as offensive as Piss Christ. The idea that the government should promote tasteless “art” is ridiculous.
If the art is provocative, and thought producing, great! Just don’t use government money to do it. And the student fees are just as coerced as any other form of government imposed taxation.
“UM’s responsibility to ensure that the paper meets journalistic standards.”
A newspaper does more than report news, they are a business, and students need to learn that too. So go ahead with “journalistic standards” for the journalistic part, what about “the rest of the story”?
“the Kaimin’s irresponsibility”
Can you prove that the column is in fact irresponsible?
“may regulate content” “may apply to public universities”
So It’s a matter of choice? Community standards?
“a portion of the Kaimin’s operating costs . . .is covered by student fees. Not taxes. Student fees.”
“whether support come from items denominated “taxes” (as, indirectly, some does) or “student fees” is a distinction without a difference.”
A student has a choice of which school to attend, I have no choice on taxes.
“One might ask why the advisor(s) have not tried to introduce some maturity into the paper.”
Why is an explicit sexual discussion automatically not “mature”?
“why hard-pressed students and their families should be forced to support this?
That’s just a rhetorical question. I’m not convinced they are “forced to support this” in reality. Even though the column is permitted, it makes no difference in terms of pure “cost” to put the paper out, and that is what you are talking about, the money people are “forced to pay”, so quantify just exactly how much money students are “forced to pay” for “porn”, and can we get a judges ruling if it is in fact “porn”?
“print what you wish with your own resources.”
Does the paper sell ads? (I’ve never seen it)
If it could be quantified and shown that non-public resources were used for just the column then there would be no problem?
I’m not qualified to pass judgment in such a gray area but I’m sure that if something outraged the community fast action would be taken.
To “more questions than answers:”
Unfortunately more questions than I can answer, especially today when I’m preparing for the week’s classes. However:
“A student has a choice of which school to attend, I have no choice on taxes.” — The fact of taxpayer support and the state university tuition structure heavily bias student choice in this state toward public institutions. More importantly, excise taxes routinely are imposed on optional goods — wine being an example. This “fee” is really an excise.
“A newspaper does more than report news, they are a business, and students need to learn that too. ” Right — that’s why it should not be supported by public dollars.
“Why is an explicit sexual discussion automatically not “mature”?” Answer: It is not AUTOMATICALLY not mature. It depends partly on how it is phrased. The discussion we are talking about here is not merely explicit, it’s prurient. It also depends on where it happens: A general interest newspaper is not really the place. It is notable, for example, that when the Missoulian wrote its article on the subject, it did not quote from the column directly. The column is largely unquotable. That’s because the Missoulian adheres to commonly-accepted journalistic standards of quality.
“Can you prove that the column is in fact irresponsible?” — Have you read the columns? It would be hard to find a place to start, but let’s start with their “incitement” nature. Given the documented damages from promiscuous sex, it is irresponsible to incite it, especially among people at an age when the hormones are most difficult to control.
“If it could be quantified and shown that non-public resources were used for just the column then there would be no problem?” — That’s impossible, of course. BUT if the Kaimin were solely self-supporting then it would be inappropriate for the university as a government entity to try to control it. Of course, it still would be within people’s rights to speak out against it, just as they speak out against Hustler magazine.
Actually, as Rob pointed out, it’s a matter of legal activity. I for one await the briefs he will file for an injunction against this column.
Rob, the question was one of proof, and all you’ve done is further state your opinion. Besides simply avoiding the question, you’ve avoided the point. Some promiscuous sex *may* cause damage, but you still haven’t shown:
a) That the articles in question incite, your word, promiscuous sex, or that
b) the problem as you claim it is actually the writing about sex and not the very harmones you now misguidedly blame.
Perhaps it hasn’t been answered because it’s a specious question in a representative democracy? You’ve opened up a position here that you can’t support. You are advocating that each person be allowed to pay taxes/fees based solely on what they desire to pay for. I don’t like Reagan’s Star Wars initiatives? My poor burdened overtaxed self shouldn’t have to pay. You don’t want to pay for additional police in DC? You shouldn’t have to pay.
Rob, you’re advocating a pay to play model that is, cast in the most polite possible light, a pure fantasy of democratic government. You are welcome to hide that stance behind the relative unimportance of a small university student newspaper, but that simply shows that you yourself don’t have confidence enough to make the grander argument to wider audience.
Is it any wonder why the moderate Muslim world hates our culture? Pushing tasteless dribble as if it has journalist merit.
Wulfgar’s last comment says it better than I but I’ll give it a shot anyways…
The “hard-pressed taxpayers” line is an emotional argument that serves no practical purpose. You might as well throw in the troops while you’re at it. And just for good measure how about a “Let’s not forget the CHILDREN!!”
This is not something for the courts, and you know it, Professor. The Kaimin is not doing anything illegal, nor is the University. If the community of Missoula or the people of Montana deem this content inappropriate, they need to speak at the voting booth. Perhaps even an amendment to the Montana State Constitution? Let’s do this the pure and democratic way and see how it actually turns out.
I have a sneaking suspicion that for all Professor Natelson speaks of the sensibilities of the citizens of Montana, he’s really just talking about himself. There ain’t much to see here – and it certainly ain’t porn.
Amend, Wulfgar and Steve – there is an agenda at work here, and it isn’t at all transparent.
Here I go being inappropriate and disrespectful again:
Whenever “A” attempts by law to impose his moral standards upon “B”, “A” is most likely a scoundrel. H.L. Mencken
And again:
“Censorship is the very wall that holds creativity back from complete freedom; because without exposure to the good and the bad, the acceptable and inappropriate and the offensive and polite, how will the mind thrive for more than what is given?” — Anonymous
I just had this thought. What if the Kaimin would’ve come out with a story saying abortions kills and causes increased breast cancer risk along with latent emotional problems. Or better yet, Save the Milltown Dam or Clean Coal Technology Rocks. How about a lead story on converting gays into straights, through ministry with access phone numbers to pastors and counselors to help with the transition.
Would the same people here, be defending “freedom of speech”?
How does that apply to yelling “fire!” in a movie theater as a joke?
That was for Mark T.
Mark T, aren’t all laws which proscribe certain behavior an attempt to impose moral standards as a way of reinforcing the societal fabric? The killing, stealing, cheating type stuff.
Swede-
Though you’re contributing to this comment thread diving into the abyss, I’ll address your question:
Liberals would damned well complain about that kind of content – but I’m willing to bet that no one would be talking about censoring it. There’s a difference between being offended – and expressing that offense – and trying to impose your sense of decency upon others.
“Liberals would damned well complain about that kind of content – but I’m willing to bet that no one would be talking about censoring it.”
I guess that’s why liberals attempt to promote conservative talk by pushing the Fairness Doctrine.
This gets back to my comment about agendas being conveniently sheathed in wrappers of misdirection.
Could’ve fooled me, a lot of liberals are talking about censoring talk radio.
Swede, it’s a tie!!!! Look at the time.
Craig and Swede-
Conservatives talk a whole lot more about the Fairness Doctrine than Liberals do. There is little serious discussion about reinstating it. It’s a scare tactic that seems to work pretty well on you guys – like you need someone to coddle you and tell you “yes, you are oppressed. Be the victim now.”
By the way, Gregg and Rob – if you’d like to see this comment thread stay on topic, feel free to delete my comments that are in response to Craig and Swede – I know I shouldn’t entertain them, as it all destroys the comment thread – but sometimes I can’t help it. I’m sure they wouldn’t mind either.
Craig, you are relying on arguments that have already been resolved to promote the continuation of another argument that has been resolved, save that you don’t like the resolution. What you see as imposition of moral standards, I see as protection of rights and property. Perhaps you could explain how the Bess Sex column stands as an affront to either of those. I fully recognize that you may have some difficulty in doing such, so if it would make it easier I will happily point out how “killing, stealing, cheating” destroy the social fabric, if only you would describe how sex educational material does the same.
Marketing Tip: If you want liberals to swarm your blog, threaten their sick obsessions.
Wulfgar, Rob N has repeatedly made the point about the sexual consequences that shred that fabric and you willingly disregard it. Nothing more to say.
Wow, in the entirety of the world wide web, you couldn’t come up with even a single link to support your claim? I’m getting the idea that you don’t understand the venue, Swede …
Again, you lie, Craig. Rob has alluded to the consequences of sexual activity but not once has shown how his jihad against the Bess Sex column relates to those consequences. He claims the column promotes promiscuous sex. No proof. He claims that promiscuous sex leads (universally) to bad consequences. No proof. He claims that frank discussion of sex is pornographic and shreds the fabric of society. He has offered absolutely no proof. None, zip, notta. That’s why he falls back on the position of pay-to-play. He has nothing else to offer.
Wulfgar, take a deep breath and give it a rest with the nonsense.
Ever the proud fool.
Craig, I’m going out on a limb and suggesting that you’re really not used to being disagreed with, are you? If you were, you wouldn’t dismiss reason for your own weak defense, would you?
Well written, Steve.
Steve T, I’m just going to let that pass. Take care now.
And for you Wulfgar:
“The world is mud-luscious and puddle-wonderful.”
–ee cummings
That’s truly beautiful, Craig – you really are the bigger man, by commenting on how you’re not going to comment. I should be ashamed.
Steve T:
“A strong argument for the religion of Christ is this – that offences against Charity are about the only ones which men on their death-beds can be made – not to understand – but to feel – as crime.”
–Edgar Allen Poe
You’re reaching, buddy. Care to stay on topic?
Wulfgar, I’m not the topic. Care to stay on topic? BTW, Japan leads Cuba 5-0 in the WBC playoffs.
Here’s an idea to make the Bess-Sex column a public as well as pubic service: End every column with a different warning box designed with graphics to look like that on a pack of cigarettes. For instance, “Warning: Sex can kill. XXX,XXX people died of Aids in China last year.” Or, “Warning: It is known to the scientific community that HPV causes cancer. Get your HPV shot at the student health service for $ xx; call xxx-xxxx for an appointment.” Or, “Warning: The CDC reports that XXX Montanans had gonorrhea in 2007. One of them was your boyfriend.” Then you’ll be putting the student fees to good use, if not mollifying your critics.
Yet you seem to desire to be so …
As I wrote before:
Wulfgar:
“While I know myself as a creation of God, I am also obligated to realize and remember that everyone else and everything else are also God’s creation.”
–Maya Angelou
I come down on the side of Bess in this debate. But I’d like to put this question to the others here who do the same.
Perhaps they remember a controversy that happened a few years ago involving a university system employee who, if I recall right, worked for the extension service. He also was, if I remember right, a religious person who was anti-abortion. He also contributed to an extension service bulletin that went out around the state, or he wrote a newsletter that went out to his region. I believe he lived on the Hi-Line. The details are little fuzzy, and someone else here might remember them better.
I believe that he wrote something in a bulletin or two that expressed opposition to abortion. Well, of course, there were some in the university community who came unglued when they found out. This fellow was reprimanded. I don’t recall if his job was at stake, but I’m pretty sure he had to submit to the humiliation of agreeing to have his future writing approved by superiors before it could go out. In other words, he was censored for expressing “incorrect” political thoughts.
At the time, I was shocked that no one in the university community stood up for the guy. No one with the ACLU offered to help him out. (Actually, I wasn’t that shocked.)
But I remember thinking: Our university system is filled with a bunch of blooming hypocrites. These professors will pose as champions of free speech, but when a tough case like this comes along, they’ll either run for cover, or they’ll insist that this fellow be censored for expressing the wrong thoughts.
I was particularly disappointed that Montana’s newspaper editors didn’t come to this guy’s defense. Not a single one stood up for this guy, even though they like to portray themselves as guardians of the first amendment.
I agree with Wulfgar that the burden of proof in this case lies with those making the complaint. If UM were to adopt a restrictive policy based solely on biblical biases that would be arbitrary and capricious regulation. As we were talking about in the other thread before you derailed the topic with irrelevant preambles, there’s no established “journalistic standard” for sexually related content. Take the column Savage Love — it runs in alt weeklies across the country but not, for example, in Missoula and Boise. That’s a community standard, not a professional standard (for the purposes of progress let’s disregard the academic point of codifying ethics).
So why, Craig? How is sexual awareness harmful to the social fabric? Because it “makes sluts?” Destructive promiscuity in women is a product of low self esteem often brought on by the confluence of the abusive American patriarchy and the degradation of girls by Republicans in their larval state (what we commonly refer to as “frat boys”). It’s a weaker line for regulation than I would be willing to draw, but suffice it to say, there’s more evidence supporting the banning of frats from the UM than sex columns, if we’re really trying to prevent harm.
Where I break from the liberals on this issue is the application of the term censorship. I think Natelson has suggested no such thing. However, I don’t believe that there’s even nearly enough of an argument here to support adopting such a prohibitive policy.
So go ahead and misinterpret that how you will.
klemz, you write: “So go ahead and misinterpret that how you will.”
You just did that all by your lonesome. You asked about awareness, I was talking about consequences when I wrote: “Rob N has repeatedly made the point about the sexual consequences that shred that fabric…” That’s been fairly established by the rising number of single teen mothers and incidence of STD’s. Even Kristen Juras said she was in favor of awareness if I remember correctly from one of the columns. But don’t let your misrepresentation get in the way of your claim to accuracy.
Hey, my comments are still up?
I thought Steve T kicked me off.
Klemz wrote: “How is sexual awareness harmful to the social fabric? Because it “makes sluts? Destructive promiscuity in women is a product of low self esteem often brought on by the confluence of the abusive American patriarchy and the degradation of girls by Republicans…”
I agree with klemz! Under the Republicans, all we got were dumb sluts because they lacked “sexual awareness.” But now, with the Democrat’s promoting high school and college “sexual awareness,” we have smart sluts everywhere. Their career-path training time has probably been cut in half.
(Mr. Clearcut clears away liberal nonsense by cutting to the bottomline.)
I’m not falling for your semantics trolling again, Craig. I’m aware professor Natelson has made the argument — I’ve read it — I just don’t think it’s a successful one. It looks like even the school marm Missoulian editorial board agrees.
We obviously have different attitudes about sex and I’m not sure either is particularly relevant to this issue. The UM student body needs to make its own choice without being terrorized by the waning forces of sexual repression.
I’m certain they’ll make it right; chastity is its own punishment.
“Chastity is its own punishment”. Good line! Is that original?
This whole discussion came about because the Professor was offended by the sexual content of a student newspaper. His first impulse was to censor, his second to obfuscate the first. So he fell back on a quasi-libertarian argument that since not everyone would approve of such content, and that those who did not approve were obliged to finance the activity by means of mandatory fees, that those who did not like the content by default had the right to censor the newspaper.
It’s a specious argument. The newspaper might operate in bad taste, and bad taste is always a clarion call for wanna-be censors. But the newspaper is not obligated to run its content by minorities for approval. Their option is simply not to read, or to submit their own content – an abstinence only column wherein each week they have a Q&A about the weather and World Baseball Classic, pretending sex doesn’t exist on campus. The other option is to simply do away with a student-run newspaper, as its means of financing brings out the wanna-be censors, and defeats its whole purpose.
My point of interest is the Professor’s behavior, and that of Professor Juris. These are highly educated people, and so know about the art of cloaking – their intention is control of others’ behavior, but such control is odious, and they know it, so they wrap it in the shiny paper of individual rights and claim they are not censors, but rather freedom marchers. But they are not – they are the same people who have been stalking the halls of the campus, congress and courts since the first woman dared bare her ankle in public.
It’s oppressive. I grew up in their world, and I don’t like it. The two professors are wet blankets, nannies, stern aunts. I read these columns – they usually appear in publications aimed at young people. They are titillating and hold my interest, and not appropriate for mainstream publications. They are often done in bad taste by people who mean to push the line and create discomfort.
But to censor them is to let the Natelsons and Juris’s of this world rule our thoughts. That’s worse – much worse than just letting it go.
Has anyone looked at Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands?
I’ve been there. When I got off the train in Sweden the first thing I saw was a large public display screen with naked children about 4 or 5 years old playing with guns. The children then dropped the guns and started hugging each other. I believe the translation of the message scrolled was something like “make love not war”. (I don’t know the language that well)
While I was quite shocked at this public display, I also immediately realized I was probably the only one there even looking at it. Nobody seemed to care or even notice. After a few days I didn’t notice or care either.
You will see naked people making love every night on public television if you want to, or totally wholesome family entertainment, but what you will not see is graphic violence. It’s like a bizzaro world of censorship the opposite of what we have when it comes to sex and violence.
The “sexual awareness” of these places is everywhere and aimed at everyone, even children. I’m not passing judgment, I’m just telling what I witnessed.
What is the teenage pregnancy rate of these places? It must be much higher because of all the “porn” and “awareness” destroying social fabric and causing “promiscuity” and “sluts” right?
If a teen gets pregnant because she is unaware of how not to get pregnant, because my tax dollars only cover “moral” education like journalistic standards, and then goes on welfare, am I being “forced to pay for some fraction of teen pregnancy” because my tax dollars were withheld from some fraction “education” or “awareness” in this area?
The question is not about sexual awareness, or tax dollars, It’s about the combination of tax dollars in conjunction with sexual awareness isn’t it?
If sexual awareness leads to a good or better relationship, good mental health, less problems for police and hospitals that my tax money pays for, then did I come out ahead in the end?
It’s about what I’m being “forced” to pay for right?
Here’s a study by UNICEF that has loads of data regarding teen sexual activity and pregnancies. It tends to vary widely in indicators – that is, a society like Korea, with strong social mores and disapproval of sexual activity among teens has a very low teen birth rate. But the northern European countries, which are much more open, are achieving impressive results as well. Income and education are big factors – kids with high expectations for life are far less likely to have babies as teens, though just as likely to be active. Kids with low expectations are far more likely to engage in unprotected (or involuntary) sex, and to carry the pregnancy through. Hence, income inequality plays a role in outcomes.
The US is just off the charts in terms of teen pregnancies (as is Britain). Since “obscene” materials are equally available in all these countries, it is not the presence or absence of censors that is making some countries experience fewer bad outcome than others. It is other factors – in Korea, it is a strong social bond and family structure. In northern Europe, it is openness and education. The US seems to suffer from lack of education and availability of contraception more than censorship. And there seems very little correlation between “abstinence only” and either reduction of sexual activity or teenage births.
It’s all very interesting, but getting back to the essentials here, the Professor is not talking about any of this, but only saying that the minority that don’t like the Kainem’s content should rule. back on topic now.
more questions than answers wrote: “Nobody seemed to care or even notice. After a few days I didn’t notice or care either.”
Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands–Welcome to George Orwell’s world!
Mark, here’s another look at teen fertility in the US: http://www.prb.org/Articles/2009/teenagefertilityrate.aspx
Notice the jump for Montana. As to the Kaimin running a sex column, such antics have previously been tested over the years. See: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E5D8163BF937A35753C1A9649C8B63
=================
But with interest in student papers waning along with the rise of the Internet, some undergraduate newspaper editors may see the discussion of breast stimulation and favorite positions as a great way to increase circulation. ”School papers are doing more to make themselves more relevant and interesting.” said John Katzman, chief executive of The Princeton Review, the college preparation company, which studies student attitudes. And what could be more interesting, said Mr. Katzman, than sex?
======================
Perhaps its just simply a matter of what gets the Kaimin read.
Daily Princetonian:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/02/13/22739/
Gregg, the freshman that wrote the Princetonian article may be on to something as per this study: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-03/jaaj-upd022609.php
More evidence of the CONSEQUENCES (for klemz benefit) that shred the social fabric.
Those are great links – the NY Times article introduced a whole ‘nother aspect to the Professor’s argument that I hope he addresses some time. Talking about college newspapers in the ’60’s it said
The Professor has stepped on the classic slippery slope here with his insistence that a minority have a right to censor a newspaper based on funding. If that is the case, then perhaps the newspaper ought never editorialize on anything controversial for fear of minority (or majority) views. Then it could merely be Thrifty Nickel where people take up collections to put forth their view.
Mark, as I wrote on one of the related columns, I think the effort is like pushing rope up hill. In my first comment on this column I indicated my concurrence withe Rob N’s point. However, in the larger totality of funding POVs with public money, the Kaimin issue is like a gnat on an elephant’s butt.
That being said I believe both profs Natelson and Juras deserve respect and appreciation for the appeal to a more beneficial discussion on important issues like sex and what’s important for stregthening societal health. The sharp vitriol pointed at them I see more as an attempt to censor their points of view through personal insults and ridicule.
Gregg posted Juras’ email. I found nothing troubling about it. So the legislators she meets with come up with some recommendation and hand them to the university and the Kaimin. I can see the response, “Thank you very much for your sincere effort and hard work to address an important issue. We will give it due consideration.” Afterwards, the university and Kaimin will do what they decide and the sun will come up tomorrow.
I like Rob’s suggestion, first stated elsewhere, about public funding of state schools, give the money to the students and not the institution. Let schools compete for their customers. And I agree with his suggestion to cut Kaimin loose from direct subsidy and compulsory fees. Reality awaits.
Mark- Do you really want to draw parallels between amateur BJ advice and the Vietnam war? I think it’s time for a reality check. Ms. Bess’s column is not deeply thought provoking, significantly informational or truly all that edgy. It’s simply an issue of good taste. All journalistic enterprises self evaluate for this or risk losing funding from their advertisers or other funding sources. Wouldn’t this be part of the educational lesson for budding journalism students? There is no such thing as consequence free “free speech” so if you have something you want to say the message better be worth the cost.
Most student newspapers are independent (or nearly so if they use campus overhead). Do we actually know percentage-wise how much of their revenue is fee- versus ad-based or are we just assuming?
Wolfpack: “It’s simply an issue of good taste.”
By who’s definition? Taste is subjective, and varies depending on a variety of factors. For example, my father was in the Navy in WWII. He’s been to countries where it’s considered indecent for women to even show their face in public, and countries where women walk around topless just like the men. Those places are closer to each other than Los Angeles is to New York. While sense of taste probably varies less in the United States, it still varies. I don’t consider Ms. Davis’s column in poor taste.
Meaning of “good taste.”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/in+good+taste
Adj. 1. in good taste – satisfying generally accepted social or esthetic standards
decorous – characterized by propriety and dignity and good taste in manners and conduct; “the tete-a-tete was decorous in the extreme”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/good
21. good – generally admired; “good taste”
discriminating – showing or indicating careful judgment and discernment especially in matters of taste; “the discriminating eye of the connoisseur”
Come on!!!! The Kaimin could care less about taste. Sex sells. There is no indication whatsoever that by publishing a voyeuristic vicarious experience column that there is any concern for exercising careful judgment and discernment in satisfying generally accepted social or esthetic standards.
Craig: Again, your definitions of what “good taste” entails are extremely subjective. “Generally accepted social standards?” “Indicating Careful Judgment?” Does the intended audience come into play? What is a “generally accepted social standard” on a University campus is probably VERY different from what is a “generally accepted social standard” for a Baptist Church.
Well, if that’s your definition then I think the Kaiman is pretty safe, because the generally accepted standards on the UM campus and in downtown Missoula are not that conservative. If you want the paper to simulate actual market behavior (ie learn the trade), then it doesn’t make much sense for them to be worried about the generally accepted standards in Miles City.
Mihalis, Gregg posted a link to an editorial in the Daily Princetonian written by a freshman. It goes to the heart of the judgment about “good taste” when considered in the totality of the consequences. If we have become numb or have not developed sensitivity for the gravity of those consequences than we lack both good taste and the maturity to make the adult decisions with the view to those consequences. Prof. Juras’ email asks about the review process that would have surfaced the necessary adult discussion to make that informed choice about content.
Craig: I think that you’re right in that Gregg’s link goes to the heart of the judgment about “good taste”, but not in the way you think. I found Mr. Pederson’s article to be well written, well thought out, and significantly less tasteful than Ms. Davis’s article. Ms. Davis’s column isn’t judgmental or condescending. It’s informative without being preachy. Mr. Pederson immediately places his ideals and beliefs on a pedestal high above the “false ideals” of others. While Ms. Davis treats her readers as peers, Mr. Pederson treats his readers as inferior children. I find that quite a bit more offensive than anything Bess Davis has mentioned in her articles.
this country passed good taste a long time ago. starting with national lampoon, playboy and penthouse. the question isn’t what is in good taste because even television is not in good taste anymore. the question is does the majority of “we ” even want good taste anymore. even if we could ever agree what that line is and where we should draw it then the question becomes who should draw that line for us? the supreme court? i doubt if they would even entertain the question. i think it is too subjective and therefore unenforceable.
i have a simple rule. if i think it is too tasteless then i don’t watch or read or listen to it. i don’t pretend to have the ego to tell others what they should watch or read or listen to. that just ain’t american in my book.
Mihalis, there are may aspects of Mr. Pederson’s editorial that ring true with me. I won’t question your reaction. To my way of thinking, giving a pass to the nameless weekend hookup BJ and exchange of bodily fluids leads to problems. Raunchy “Girls Gone Wild” coarseness is never good taste and, as Mr. Pederson eloquently states, leaves scars.
Craig: I expected that you probably had a different reaction to that article than I did. I respect that. I suppose that it is this exact issue that bothers me so much. Professor Juras and Professor Natelson are more than welcome to their opinion. What offends me about their actions is that they appear to hold their opinions above and beyond those of people that disagree with them. Beyond that, it seems that their opinions are so superior that they should be foisted on the lowly horde who can’t see how vastly better their ideas are. That is significantly more offensive to me than anything Bess Davis has ever said.
Mihalis, please continue participating here on other columns.
I think we all need to get over being offended. I suspect that both profs would accept a decisional review process that weighed the issues before things like the sex column were intiated.
Craig, as has been pointed out many times, those are two different arguments: societal harm, and ‘taste’. The taste argument is obviously not very compelling, based in no small part on Rob N’s initial and rather extreme claims of “pornography”. The column in question is not, nor has ever been, “Girls Gone Wild”.
As to the “nameless weekend hookup BJ and exchange of bodily fluids” causing harm, you are again arguing from a fantasy that has not been established as fact, anywhere, except in your mind (introspection, it’s your friend.) Yes, there can be harmful effects from promiscuous thoughtless sex. But if we look past the fact that you continue to confuse correlation with causation, we can find the answer to such societal ills in education, just as Ms. Davis is providing her column.
And, because it has largely been ignored and needs tio be repeated, allow me to quote klemz:
Though I do note that in referring to the American patriarchy and Republicans in their larval state he is being, quite simply, redundant.
I posted this below, under an old Bess Sex-related post, hoping to hear from Rob, but he might not be digging that deeply in the porn archives. Here’s what I posted:
Rob Natelson says:
“The only justification for the Kaimin receiving public dollars is its educational value in the field of journalism. According, it has an obligation to meet standards of good-quality journalism. Otherwise it is exercising power without responsibility.”
I don’t think that’s the only justification. Maybe the regents and the other powers that be thought that the university, to be a fully functioning community, needed a newspaper. Newspapers tell members of the community what’s going on, report on disorders and dislocations within the community, open up discussions the community otherwise might not have — like this very interesting one — and more than any other institution, perhaps, build community. And maybe the powers that be understood that on a campus it would be very hard, even impossible, for a bunch of young, part-time journalists to create a self-sustaining newspaper.
So they provide a little help in the way of student fees, just as fees support many other campus activities that not all students use. It has become very common for alternative newspapers to feature sex columns, and a campus newspaper is a kind of alternative newspaper because it doesn’t have to cover all the news of the world to be complete; it only has to serve an audience that is much more demographically homogeneous than most newspapers deal with. So in a way it is responsible to follow the working model of the alternative newspaper.
And behold: newspapers have a way of responding to their readership, however they are funded. If enough students shared your outrage and flooded the Kaimin with denunciations of Bess Sex, there would probably be changes. But have any students complained? Is this so-called outrage confined to you and Professor Juras? I ask because I really don’t know.
One final point: At the very beginning of this very long discussion, you defined porn by going back to the Greek root and saying that it involves matter designed to inflame lust among the customers of prostitutes. In the wide world of porn, smut and erotica available to your average modern American, I would have to rate Bess Sex, on a 1 to 10 inflammation meter, with 10 being the most inflammatory, somewhere around 1.5. Bess Sex is about as lusty as Dr. Ruth.
Wulfgar, please refer to my 8:44 am comment.
Craig, that is precisely the comment where you epically confuse correlation with causation. I order to make the point you seem so very desperate to make you would have to show that the break in social fabric is due to rampant sexuality, and not mental illness, or that thoughtless sexuality is the result, and not the effect of said mental illness and/or personality disorder. Since the research didn’t even approach that view, I doubt that you can.
And quite directly to the point no one, not you, not Dr. Rob, simply no single commenter here has shown that the Bess Sex column “incites” thoughtless or harmful sex. Until you do, there isn’t much going for your arguments.
Wulfgar, you wilfully disregard the obivous.
Yet you’ve still never shown how.
Ed – damned if that wasn’t cogent. Thanks. I’m satisfied this discussion had a point to it after all.
I take a completely different approach to self-destructive behavior, such as abortion, pornography, homosexuality, drug use, etc. I say let it roll!
People who value their own human dignity and worth will not allow themselves to be corrupted, debased, or incapacitated by any of the aforementioned depraved behaviors. They will go on to live wholesome, healthy, and moral lives as prosperous and happy citizens. They will also pass on their values to their children.
The others, those who hate life and despise themselves, will continue merrily enjoying their abortions, pornography, homosexuality, and drug use, which will lead to fatal diseases, psychoses, social ostracism, and incarceration. At a minimum, they will be so dysfunctional at an early age that they will be unable to compete for good schools or good jobs or even good spouses, thus condemning their children (if they are not aborted) to the same awful life.
In short, let these lovers of deranged behavior sate themselves to the fullest, because that is the quickest way to get them out of the way. It’s a Darwinian thing.
“I suspect that both profs would accept a decisional review process that weighed the issues before things like the sex column were intiated.”
Yes, I suspect that they would also accept getting their way. Unfortunately, I still think someone needs to show more than the presumed potential for harm. Logic demands a direct line. C-A-U-S-A-T-I-O-N.
If it is your money do as you please. If it is my money do as I please. This is NOT a freedom of speech issue.
[...] wrap things up by noting that Electric City Weblog has hit a new GF-area milestone, I think, with 79 comments and counting on the entry about the state-funded porn paper at [...]
When it comes to inductive reasoning looking forward, causation is a canard.