“Yes, we have reactivated are the Student Media Activism Coalition (SMAC!), although the de-cryogenic reanimation process did not completely restore their previous mental capabilities. As a result, they are capable of little more than semi-articulate, amateur displays of pyrotechnics. But an infant—ten monkeys with typewriters (!—ould perform the tasks we have assigned them; they will do nicely!”
—astermind of the GIANT LIBERAL MEDIA CONSPIRACY, captured communiqué
About this time last year, the “Editors-in-Chiefs” at the Argus invented—and proceeded to flaunt –a new power of “censorial discretion” over Wespeaks, parading the move as follows: “Many of our readers…believe they are entitled to write on any subject, silly or profane, and have their work appear in the next issue of the Argus. This is not the case and as any journalist or editor will recognize, it is common practice for a publication to select at its discretion what to publish and what to omit (”Rethinking Wespeaks,“ 10.05.04).”
In general, we find the naked lust for power, authority, and (most of all) important titles by some of the more “highly motivated persons” (HMPs) here bemusing/amusing; it is, however, no joke when such proclivities pose a threat to free speech. So, we ask that the current editorial staff publicly rescind such an unsavory precedent; Free the Wespeaks! We would remind editors that while they may RUN or ADMINISTER the Argus, they do not CONSTITUTE nor do they OWN it. They may write stories or design pages, but in essence the Argus remains a collective, organic possession of the entire student body. We fund this publication, our events/issues that are covered as “news,” and finally, our contributions which make the Argus interesting; without any hesitation, we argue that most students read this rag primarily for the WESPEAKS.
So please don’t mess with them; editors need not judge the relative merits of the writer nor hir opinions, but to circulate the Wespeak (short of hate-speech) so that students can communicate with each other. The Snowdens of yesteryear was mistaken in setting the Argus’ standards to the “common practices” of other publications; instead, it is this student paper which has the rare opportunity of functioning as a truly democratic, inclusive, and socially important method of expression—the type of which can rarely be found anywhere else on EARTH.
Furthermore, as an independent student publication, the Argus bears no responsibility whatsoever in fulfilling the needs, reproducing the viewpoints, or alleviating the concerns of the University. It is highly disturbing to us—and we hope we’re not alone in this—to read “Director of Communications” Justin Harmon’s expectation that “the Argus should have done its own reporting about the facts before running [Alex Early’s 9/20/05] the Wespeak [about the proposed fence in the lo-rise complex]. That would have been a service to readers (10/07/05).”
Harmon has no defensible basis for expecting a Wespeak to be silenced out of convenience to anyone. He is correct in thinking more information would allow students a clearer picture of developments on campus; however, the burden for openness and accountability rests not with students, but on those who promulgate University policy. It also might have been a “service to readers” if the University had made this particular development known to students—it has had months to do so. We did not see mention of this fence, for example, in an announcement by a university official, nor did we read about it in the “Wesleyan Connection,” nor in any other glossy propaganda of the sort this year.
If the University rejects democratic governance in practice (this is a matter of fact, not opinion), the least it can do is honestly inform students of what is actually going on; if they do not, students must attempt to find out for themselves. Under such circumstances, we would hope for the Argus to encourage free speech and open communication by publishing Wespeaks, critically reporting on issues (not just events), and not heeding any pressure—in whatever form—the University may exert to influence its content. Past experience has unfortunately inured us to the recognition that at particular junctures the Argus does (unwittingly) contribute to the marginalization and de-legitimation—if not suppressio—f student politics and opinion here, often quoting and reproducing the “official story” ad nauseum.
Thus, for the reasons given above, and simply for the sake of extolling the special importance we place upon the “silly,” the “profane”—creativity—in everyday life, we must reiterate our strong admonition: “Free, Free, the Wes-Speak!”
Leave a Reply