The Journal is proud whenever we generate reader input. Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are simply one formulation of the almost daily input The Journal receives on content in all of its sections. Recently, we’ve received a number of complaints and grievances regarding two op-eds written by one of our staffers.
The pieces, one entitled “Hypocrites,” and the other a piece to a two-part discussion on the Day of Silence, were met with mixed reactions in varying degrees of hostility. It was suggested at one point that we should fire this writer, for printing such “hateful” language.
The Journal opinion section operates under a basic premise. All op-eds are the opinions of the writers alone, and only unsigned editorials (like this one) are written on behalf of the editorial staff as a whole.
Our writers’ views may be controversial, but that is exactly what makes them welcome in our newspaper. We would not be a print publication of merit if we did not make available all viewpoints on a topic.
It is the opinion of the editorial board that students should be ashamed the day our newspaper prints only the ideas and beliefs that are most familiar and welcome.
The Journal will always print our reader feedback in the form of letters and thrives on the constant, unceasing feedback of our campus. But to suggest that differing opinions cannot be expressed in this section publication is absurdly single-minded.
Webster is not a campus of group-think. It is our diversity and individuality that provide us with the rich campus life we sometimes muster. And, regardless of emotional tribulation, diversity will always include people that feel differently than ourselves.
It is with pride and humility that we firmly stand by all writers or readers with the conviction and courage to contribute to our opinion section. There is a boldness in so openly revealing oneself to a campus as small and personal as Webster. Without those contributions, we could not exist.
The Journal is proud of the savage, unapologetic reactions to our words. We cannot more fully express our interest in the continued input of every reader angry, proud, hurt, excited or saddened by our content.
We welcome each and every voice, and no student will ever be punished for voicing their deepest thoughts on an issue of importance. Our publication believes an open-door policy for expression is the only way we can protect all forms of speech.
It is this policy of welcome variety that protects and enhances the rights of all students.
Keep talking, Webster.
Share this post
