Sarah Jeglum, editor of the University of Washington Daily,
seems confused. “He has the right to share his opinion,” she tells
me, explaining why she stands by her decision to run a controversial
November 25 opinion column by UW senior John Fay, in which Fay
described homosexuality as an “emotional condition” that should be
fixed, likened gay marriage to bestiality and pedophilia, and suggested
that homosexuals should not be afforded equal protection under the
law.
While it’s true that Fay, like everyone else in this country, has a
constitutionally protected right to have and share opinions, that isn’t
the issue. The issue is whether Jeglum, as editor of a
117-
year-old publication that seeks to encourage intelligent
debate on the UW campus, should have published Fay’s
editorial—which
ran under the headline “Gay marriage? Let’s
stop and think about this” but displayed very little in the way of
clear thought.
The piece was based on a foundation of circular logic and riddled
with basic misunderstandings of the issues at play in the gay-marriage
debate. Some of its conclusions are quite
standard—
homosexuality is a choice, gay marriage is a
slippery slope—but the incoherent way that Fay arrived at them
was jarring, even to people familiar with anti-gay-marriage rhetoric,
as was the illustration that accompanied his piece: a silhouette of a
man being nuzzled by a sheep. This is university-
caliber
dialogue?
“I think in this case, the arguments being made by John [Fay] are
arguments
being made in this discussion,” said Jeglum, 21,
striking a confident tone and sticking to her talking points when we
met in a small office across from the Daily‘s cluttered newsroom
last week. “The arguments are out there, and it’s important that people
realize that, well-founded or not, these opinions and ideas exist in
the context of this debate.”
Of course, that’s a complete misunderstanding of the role of a
newspaper editor.
Which, in one sense, is fine. Student newspapers exist so that young
adults can learn how to practice worthwhile journalism, and Jeglum, who
is majoring in communications, says this has been a learning experience
for her. It’s a learning experience that, as it turned out, involved a
lot of anger directed at her by other people, the formation of a new
Facebook group called “Students for a Hate Free Daily,” demands
that Jeglum apologize or resign (she’s doing neither), and a protest
outside the UW student union.
I’m sure Jeglum has learned a lot. Certainly she’s learned what it’s
like to live under the microscope; in the face of widespread conjecture
that she’s an archconservative intent on tilting the Daily to
the right, Jeglum has refused to say anything about her political
leanings. But even if we know little about who Jeglum is, we do know
something about how she thinks. UW journalism professors, take note:
Jeglum, now in her senior year, remains fundamentally confused about
where the abstract right to an opinion ends and the concrete
responsibilities of an editor begin.
Someone needs to tell her: Just because a person has an opinion does
not mean he or she has an automatic right to publish it in your
paper—particularly if your paper seeks to encourage informed
debate. Everyone has opinions, yes, and everyone has a right to his or
her opinions, but not everyone has an opinion column, because not
everyone has well-reasoned, well-founded, logically coherent
opinions.
Fay’s column was not opinion ready for publication. At best, it was
a highly inelegant regurgitation of right-wing talking points; at
worst, it was an indictment of UW admissions standards. He wrote:
“For gay marriage to even fit within a court’s jurisdiction, it must
have some basis in constitutionality. Yet the [California Supreme
Court] argued that forbidding marriage rights to gays is
discrimination, ‘like a person’s race or gender.’ Race is a biological
state; homosexuality is more of an emotional condition, and we should
not, for that reason alone, start passing laws condoning it.”
If you’re going to do the religious-
conservative line, it can
be done far better—and far more coherently—than this. Fay’s
jurisdiction argument is a closed loop of
illogic (essentially, he
is saying, “They don’t have jurisdiction because I, John Fay, say they
don’t”). In any case, it’s a loser. Courts determine their jurisdiction
and interpret the constitution, not undergraduates, and many courts
have now found it within their jurisdiction (and well within their
state constitutions) to consider lawsuits seeking equal treatment for
gays and lesbians.
As for his race argument, it’s quite muddled, with his “biological
state” assertion coming off as rather, um, retro. There are, I am sure,
many UW professors who would tell Fay that while there are some
biological facets to race (skin color, for instance), the dominant
factor in the way our culture treats race arises from social
constructions, not a set of biological facts.
More importantly, events like the passage of the Civil Rights Act
did not come about because people were arguing that race is an
immutable “biological state.” They were arguing, essentially, that
racism is what Fay calls “an emotional condition.” For Fay to
argue the biological basis for race as if it were the reason for
civil rights laws and then try to preclude the equal treatment of
homosexuals because of a supposed lack of a biological basis for
homosexuality—well, that shows not only a gross misunderstanding
of history but also complete ignorance of the current state of
scientific knowledge about what makes a person gay.
Fay, who is, ironically, a history major, insists homosexuality is a
state that gay people should learn to overcome. “People say being gay
is natural and therefore it is a good thing. My question is, why is it
automatically a good thing? Some people are born with things that are
not good for them,” he says.
It’s clear that Fay didn’t really know what he was saying in his
column. Or that he knew what he wanted to say but couldn’t say it in a
way that made logical sense. Or that he couldn’t anticipate and
effectively deal with counterarguments. Maybe the problem was all of
that and more. In any event, a good editor does not look at a piece
such as his and say: “Publish! And throw in an illustration of a guy
with a sheep, too!”
I asked Jeglum what the standard was for opinion pieces making it
into the Daily. She really couldn’t give me any standards, but
she did tell me she believes all opinions are valid.
That, of course, is not true—and the mission of a respectable
university is, if nothing else, to teach people this. 
Additional reporting by Dominic Holden.
You’re right, Eli. A good editor knows when to step in and exercise editorial power.
But when the alternative press is reporting on college journalism, I have to wonder, where’s YOUR editor? Anyone who went to college knows how inconsequential the college paper is, much less the daily opinion column.
The truth is, you didn’t write this column to talk about Jeglum, you wrote it to respond to Fay. You just wanted to have your say in a trivial little argument between college kids. They’re just spouting their mouths off and you wanted to feel like a hero. Ultimately, you come off as a snob (“someone needs to tell her”) and a bully, which only going to hurt us in the fight against bigotry.
Speaking of hate…this piece is a nice example of an unfounded opinion about Jeglum promoting hate and misunderstanding. Did anyone ever stop to consider that Fay comes off looking like a misinformed uneducated bigot in his column? I don’t think that’s doing any favors to the right-wing argument. Maybe Jeglum is smarter than you think.
“but not everyone has an opinion column, because not everyone has well-reasoned, well-founded, logically coherent opinions”
For Example: Half of the staff of the Stranger.
To everyone who keeps pleading with us to remember that the Daily is just a tiny, inconsequential college paper, I hate to remind you that the UW is not the small college you may have gone to. This paper has large and wide circulation in Seattle and is accessible online. It is linked to (even for non-mockery purposes) by non-collegiate sources. In short, it should be tiny and inconsequential but it’s a big embarrassment for the 40,000 of us who are associated it solely by paying tuition.
@Nick and Danielle:
Having worked at the UW for the last year and a half, picking up the Daily more days than not, I can tell you with some authority that the paper wasn’t very good when I started reading it, but it’s gotten much, much worse. Whether it’s directly Jeglum’s fault or not, editorial standards at the Daily have taken a sad nose-dive. I came via the University of Texas at Austin, where the student paper, the Daily Texan, is a long-standing, award-winning exemplar of good college journalism. I assure you, the Daily here just doesn’t measure up. This is only the most offensive incident in an ever-growing history of crap.
homophobia [like other emotional tendencies, doesn’t make someone a bad person, but it’s a problem that needs to be dealt with, not denied.]
or maybe it does make someone a bad person.
All opinions are equally valid. If I believe that everyone over 5’10” tall should be ground up into taco meat, or that eating cotton balls cures cancer, these views deserve wide exposure in the press.
I have no love lost for a lot of the arguments the right makes. However, I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who’s right or moderate and wants to be openly political these days.
I went to a school in MA that has a very famous reputation for being a “Hippie” school, and quickly discovered two things:
1. Liberal Schools are not bastions of free speech and exchange of knowledge that they claim to be. Any dissenting opinion, no matter how much or little is based in fact is not only condemned but frequently ganged up on and attacked by a mob. It’s easier than educating, especially when those who are “wrong” obviously need to “educate themselves” on why they are wrong.
2. College students, liberal or conservative, are generally very stupid. Many students lack the ability to have intelligent civil discussions about complicated issues because they spent most of their life in a political bubble, and belief that their position alone is all the proof that they need for their arguments.
That said, perhaps the campus needs more than one newspaper. Among the several magazines put out by student groups on my campus, (in addition to the “official” paper) is a publication that explicitly states it publishes any material as long as it is not libelous, and the author identifies themselves and takes responsibility for it. It’s seen its share of controversy, but it’s also one of the longest-existing publications on campus.
Whether or not based in logic or even completely offensive, all people need to be allowed a safe and non-violent outlet for their opinions. As the “official” paper, the Daily was just a poor choice for Fey to publish his in.
Criticism of Jerglum is completely valid. To ignore it because it is just a silly college paper is to ignore the fact that it has a circulation of 20,000 copies a day, plus who knows how many online readers. Far more people read the Daily than the SGN.
I don’t care that Fey is a homophobic ass. He’s entitled to his opinion, no matter how ignorant it is. I don’t even care that the Daily ran an anti-gay-marriage article. There are lots of people out there that think gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, and the Daily also ran a pro-gay-marriage article on the same day.
But I do care that Jerglum decided Fey’s article was worth publishing. That she thinks an article full of factually wrong information is acceptable, so long as it is “opinion”. That basic fact checking is optional. Surely she could have found someone who was opposed to gay marriage that could write an article that wasn’t full of lies. Or perhaps she could have given it back to Fey and told him to polish it up a bit an resubmit it. Isn’t an editor’s job to edit, not just print any bullshit a student hands in? As a senior and a journalism major, she should know better by now. Epic fail.
I also care that she chose to illustrate the article with an even more offensive bit of clip art. Goat fucking? For real? That wasn’t Fey’s idea. Someone else, either Jerglum or someone else on the staff, came up with that art as a way to illustrate the gay marriage discussion. Whoever came up with the art, Jerglum signed off on it. How about a clip art of cross burning next time you do a race article? Hilarious!
Finally, she appears to have learned nothing. Instead of reexamining her position, she has just steadfastly stood by her article and her art. Kind of like Bush. Never admit you made a mistake.
Fuck you Jerglum. If this is your idea of editorial responsibility, I hope you end up working at Arby’s for the rest of your life. Fucking hack.
Thank you.
The reason that I was most offended by Fay’s editorial wasn’t his opinions, per se. While they were offensive and anachronistic, I was more troubled by the fact that such ill-reasoned, poorly-constructed arguments made it past an editor. I suppose, then, that it was not surprising when her defense of a decision to publish it relied on similarly fuzzy rationale concerning the purpose of journalism and the validity of all opinions to be heard.
It’s unfortunate that the UW doesn’t actually have an undergraduate major in journalism.
As an old news dog (reporter/editor, 25+ years) I have to agree pretty much with Eli. Just because you CAN print it doesn’t mean you SHOULD without critical judgment and an experienced editorial eye, which were sadly lacking on all fronts at the university during this episode.
But then again, as an old news dog, I know better than to dabble in the sandboxes of the kids or take them too seriously. They’re still children playing adult reporters and editors. The good ones will rise to the top in time. The rest simply won’t.
These are seniors at UW? What garbage I can’t beleive this is the level of education college seniors have. I think it is incredulous that the head editor is unable to make simple highschool level judgement calls and understand how a logical opinion is expressed. To sum it up what the hell happened to college education and standards?
I think I’m starting to see Jeglum’s point here, Eli.
She’s trying to tell you that she wants to publicize the arguments that actually exist in the world. Fay’s beliefs are commonplace; that is a fact. You seem to think that the response to this is to run to her teachers and tell them to tell her that there is no automatic right to be published.
First, tattle tale.
Second, she didn’t say there was an automatic right. She said she wanted to include all the points of view that were being thrown around out there. That right there is an editorial standard, though you say she has none. And Fay’s point of view isn’t a fringe minority; he represents a large part of the people who stand in the way of gay civil rights today.
You know, everyone was cheering on John Stewart’s barbs during Mike Huckabee’s appearance on the Daily Show this week, but ol’ Huck was trying to tell you something you need to hear. Americans are not being won over for gay marriage. Gay civil rights is losing, and losing, and losing some more at the polls, and it’s time to face up to it.
You’re burying your head in the sand with The Stranger‘s attempts to bring retribution down on Jeglum and Fay, rather than listen. Fay is showing you what is in the minds of the people who need to be won over, and Jeglum is trying to get you to pay attention to that.
Let me say what you cannot professionally say…
Sarah, put Tammy Bruce back on the shelf and go read a history book, you fucking stupid bitch.
You’re right. Stupid editor. A point/counterpoint opinion section shouldn’t have had pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage side by side. The appropriate argument should have been lesbian marriage vs. homosexual marriage.
She said she wanted to include all the points of view that were being thrown around out there.
“Wanted to” and “did” are different things.
so how did she ever get to become the editor? what is the selection process? peer-recommendations? appointed? voted?
@ elenchos
You’re burying your head in the sand thinking that Fay’s “points” still need to be addressed and discussed. Arguing those points–every point in Fay’s piece–is like arguing with a can of soup.
@how long have those points been around again?
You’re right! Everything’s pointless! Let’s ignore our opponents and/or make fun of them! That’ll win more votes for our side the next time around, because the REAL people will recognize how smart and awesome we are!
Actually it’s like arguing with millions of cans of soup who have the power to go to the polls and vote down your rights. So go ahead and call them stupid if you like, but don’t act like you don’t know why gays keep losing. That’s why.
Perhaps Jeglum’s idea of a serious career in “journalism” is rising to the editor’s desk at the Enquirer? And Fay’s idea of an opinion piece was conceived after reading too many letters from Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America? The best education in the world won’t make a stupid person smart. In this, case, I might say “two stupid people”. Unfortunately.
I think I might be reiterating what others have said.
No, all opinions are not valid, at least not in this context. Fay’s piece is not well-reasoned or thoughtful but just frat boy fears dressed up in cheesy right wing rhetoric ala the Heritage Foundation.
Jeglum’s statements above and demonstrated lack of editorial judgment reflect the dearth of critical thinking at the UW. Based on Jeglum’s logic, the Wall Street Journal should give Paris Hilton an editorial page to comment on the possible bail out of the auto industry, ’cause like it’s “fair and balanced.”
Ultimately, the whole thing is depressing. I can’t help thinking: Are people really that stupid?
@ elenchos… I think you make some valid points.
If that was Jeglum’s intention, one would hope that as a communications major and editor of a student newspaper for a large university, she would be able to convey that intention to her readers.
Perhaps a rebuttal from the campus LBGT group right next to Fay’s piece? Or was there one? I never saw the actual issue.
everything she says is a lie.
Perhaps the reason that Jeglum posted John Fay’s terrible article was that Sarah Gaither had submitted her well-written article about her disbelief at Prop 8’s passing and Jeglum received pressure to run a “dissenting opinion” so they took the first cobbled-together anti-gay marriage opinion piece they got. That’s almost what this seems like – desperate.
People keep bringing up that liberals really hate free speech and dissenting opinion, but the majority of the criticism seems to be over the terribly written nature of the column more than the opinion itself. I wish people would get out of the echo chamber and see that. It is flat out a poorly written opinion, as Eli summarizes. Liberals don’t hate free speech, they hate stupidity.
http://www.facebook.com/s.php?q=John+Fay…
About the respectability of the Daily, I agree with John.
I pick up the Daily fairly regularly because of one feature I consistently enjoy — the reprint of the NYT crossword puzzle. Also on weekends I like to correct the grammar in the fashion insert. Though it has an illustrious past, it has fallen on hard and half-assed times.
Fay’s article was embarrassing and immature. At the same time, this really shouldn’t have left Slog. Did this get printed?
Blah blah. We can argue all we want. Is The Daily going to apologize? No. Get over it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millie_Tant
Fay’s article was based on fear-driven propaganda and base ignorance..the choice to publish the piece by the editor..I can only surmise-centers upon a common idealogy shared with Fay concerning homosexuality. If she was trying to encourage dialogue she would have chosen a piece more researched and logical…but then again she is 21 years old…her lack of wisdom is apparently clear and her politics transparent. Rather than becomming enraged- we should revel in the knowledge that her blind idealogy will ultimately be the death of her and her second rate journalism skills will leave her pounding on the doors of those disinterested.
Oh, Stranger. You are a perfect characture of yourself. Free speech for the liberals and homosexuals, silence for the other 98% of society.
Ugh. The picture of the guy and the sheep is what kills me. Even if the article was decent and well written — who thought that the illustration was a good idea?
Students for a Hate Free Daily did NOT give the ultimatum of “apologize or resign.” That was the GPSS.
As a UW grad, I have to say the Daily has been publishing bullshit and nonsense for the past couple of years, but it seems they’re reaching lower depths with a newly inspired rush of urgency.
The problem is there are some kids over there that think,
“Hey, I can be the next Karl Rove! I’ll take a hot topic and do an inflamitory/hurtful editorial, thereby making a name for myself. This is a sure-fire way of getting that Fox News internship.”
John Fay is not the first, nor will he be the last.
Like always, we will have to bring the evangelicals and right-wing morons kicking and screaming into the future.
It just gets tiring always having to fight these whiney, bratty douche-bags.
Love,
John Dover
Danielle said, “Did anyone ever stop to consider that Fay comes off looking like a misinformed uneducated bigot in his column?” I agree with this completely. One of the great benefits of open and public dialogue is to show everyone how completely bass-ackwards some peoples’ lines of reasoning are. You have a right to your rhetoric, same as Fay, but you go too far when you condemn another journalist for giving an idiot enough rope to hang himself. The educated reader knows better to take seriously what a hatemonger says – but how many of them are there, out there? I’d hazard a guess and say a good,fair number are, but there’s no convincing those who fear “the gays”, except for learning by personal experience. People don’t start life with a full complement of opinions and rationalizations. There are smart people who operate on bad logic, and everyone you know thinks they are smart. So when a person who is indisposed to grant civil rights to one group or another sees someone like Fay up there, they will most likely not go past the rhetoric. A person like Fay is just looking for some popular support – “Look at me! I can speak for you!” And anyone who, like me, used to feel differently about conservative issues than I do now, will look at the best reasoning on the subject available and say, “wait a minute – that doesn’t make any sense, those arguments don’t hold up.”
So don’t go shooting the messenger. Use your energy to lambaste the logic of your real opponent.
Jeglum says that all points of view should be respected. Then I say post an article in the daily on:
“KOMO’s Marlee Ginter Might Be Sucking Off Goats”.
What I most found offensive was not the anti-gay marriage opinion written by John Fay. Rather it was Jeglum’s approval of the cartoon with the man and the nuzzling sheep. There was no editorial standard using that cartoon. For me – brings back visions of Theta Xi, the fraternity on the UW that was kicked off for using sheep as a hazing technique for incoming pledges.
Eli Sanders (who’s made a career at The Stranger out of conjecture and misinformation) is lecturing others on Journalism 101? What’s next… Dan Savage’s NFL Playoff Preview? Erica C. Barnett Road Tests the 2009 SUVs?
Figured out who Greg Palast is yet, Eli?
Wow it’s been almost 10 years since I wrote for The Daily and I recall the exact same kind of screw-ups happening then to. (April Fool’s Day 1997.)
The issue is that there’s isn’t a class called “Journalism Ethics” at the Communications School. Students at 19, 20 and 21 don’t know how to run a newspaper. They are groping as they go along. Making up conventions they believe are written in stone. Or aping conventions they think exist.
There is no discussion in what SHOULD be the role of a newspaper or an opinion editor. There is no discussion about changing it either.
Sarah Jeglum isn’t all that much different from any Opinion editor I’ve ever talked to or read about that defends a badly written piece. “Well everyone should get a turn” is the response…unless it’s “We have limited space.”
–catrina_dirk (at) hotmail.com
I absolutely agree with this piece, and was waiting for someone to write it. Using Jeglum’s logic, ANY opinion is valid to publish, simply because it is an opinion. So of course, if a LaRouchePAC kid, or a white supremacist, had an opinion, it should therefore be considered by Jeglum to be publishable material, right?
I have no doubt that writing a conservative column in the newspaper of a liberal university is somewhat difficult, but this cannot serve as an excuse for a complete lack of oversight. I WANT to see good writing from all sides of the political spectrum. Jeglum would do well to take this into account.
While I do agree that Fay is an absolute moron, and Jeglum must be even more so because she read his opinion collumn and deemed it “valid” enough for print… This story does not elicit a spot in Stranger news! Maybe a bitch session on slog, but why are you dedicating a page of your paper to these dumbasses? They don’t deserve your time of day.
And rinse and repeat.
During my tenure as editor-in-chief, we had a nearly identical uproar over my decision to run a piece advocating for the continued display of the Confederate flag in the South (it was a topic of the day), next to which was a counter-point story opining on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. Both were well-enough written and relevant to merit publication. The fallout? Several groups on campus were burning my papers and advocating for my head.
It too got outside (ie. local media) coverage … which leads me to say hats off the the above writer for bothering to talk with the editor. I was never actually interviewed in ANY coverage of the “incident”, a telling commentary on the voracity of the local media.
Looking back today, I would have made the same decision. I still abide the notion that the editorial pages, particularly those of a college paper, should reflect the diversity of opinions found in the community. Unfortunately most public discourse has been reduced to name calling and shouting. Asking student journalists to fix this is asking a bit too much, sadly.
I cannot defend or condemn the editor’s decisions (and it does sound as if there was a frown-worthy choice of art). However, I take some heart in knowing the traditions of The Daily live on.
yeah! uw daily sux. jeglum is an idiot as is fay! go gays!
thats my opinion. hey, in that case i should write for the daily. i work at UW and am sad to say that i read the daily and either laugh at the stupid articles or shake my head that these are articles written by college kids who r clearly very isolated, and like other people have noted, can’t argue a valid point to save their life. everyday kids come in and i am amazed that someone actually let them into a college – and the UW at that. or maybe it is easier to get into the UW than i thought
my favorite part about the anti gay marriage argument is that it will lead to rampant animal fucking like “if we allow two dudes to get married then why dont we allow amoebas to marry elk”. this is crap because besides the bullshit civilized hegemony that certain couples buy into (gay or straight) like that part about an integral part of our lives on this planet is meant to be dedicated to seeking out and consecrating a union with THE ONE, marriage is also about tax law, visiting rights, child rearing, and civil rights all of which arent mentioned in the bible and also all of which amoebas and elk give give two shits about.
if we legalize gay marriage we dont have to make it legal for anyone to marry whatever they want. marriage involves two individuals saying i do, or providing explicit consent. a sheep can not say i do or provide explicit consent. allowing someone to marry a sheep would involve legalizing rape.
also buy associating gay marriage with sex with animals that makes it seem like people who want to have sex with animals are homosexuals. by definition people who want to have sex with non human animals are even less homo than heteros. someone who wants to fuck a goat is not gay. they are a goat fucker.
ATTENTION!
Eli Sanders completely missed the point of my article in the Daily, because I’m not a very good writer and got mixed up. I’ll try again.
You see, I’m a sheep-fucker. I LOVE sheep. Nothing gets my cock hard like some Spokane, born-and-raised, quadrupedal pussy. I swear, when I set eyes on those grass-stained lips something comes over me….
I’ve found many of my happiest memories were back in high school, walking the fields with my dad’s herd, listening to their gentle “baaaahh” in the air. I would meditate and gander and shoot the sin of my body back into nature….
It’s what I did, it’s who I am.
What I was trying to say was, you gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry and have equal rights if I’m still considered an outcast for fucking sheep. It shouldn’t be the love between two consenting adults, but the love between mammals.
I’m sorry about the misinformation, but two many words play to much with my head.
If you would like to talk further about this, please contact me. You have my information.
Sincerely,
John Fay
PS. Also, please stop referring to it as “Bestiality”. We prefer Farm Love.
As someone who actually majored in journalism at a school that offers a highly regarded journalism program and who is now a professional journalist in NYC, I can say Jeglum doesn’t know what the hell she is doing.
The author got it right when he said this has nothing to do with free speech. What goes into the paper is up to the editors, not the government. Any decent editor would recognize Fay’s column as shitty, and the whole “all opinions are valid” line is just lazy, postmodernist thinking.
Maybe I’m just naîve, but when it comes to journalism, don’t opinions need to be based on at least a modicum of facts? Something that resembles fact?
This is a notion that has distressed me throughout my sociopolitical consciousness. Noble ideas such as journalism or civic leadership have always failed in practice to meet expectation, and this is whence a certain degree of cynicism arises. Still, though, it does not seem so unreasonable to expect, even in journalistic opinion, some semblance of fact or context related to reality.
And this is the core of what I perceive as the Daily‘s offense. It is almost as if an obscure attempt at humor has backfired, and nobody is willing to admit that it was just a joke. Indeed, when you start an article with The Simpsons, readers might expect that you are aiming for a humorous commentary.
But wherever John Fay purported fact, he seemed to stumble and miss in a manner so clumsy as to suggest slapstick Nothing constitutional about gay marriage on a state or federal level? In that context, there is nothing constitutional about any marriage. However, as the courts in several states, including Iowa, for heaven’s sake, have recognized, there is something constitutional about equal protection. The constitutional question seems to be whether, to the one, an inherently sex-based standard is or is not discriminatory or, to the other, whether sex-based discrimination is a constitutional issue at all. Many “traditionalists” (heterosupremacists who hearken back to the gilded age of Leave It To Beaver and Ozzie and Harriet) would claim that homosexuals have equal rights already: they can marry someone of the opposite sex. But this argument only begs a question: Is the sex of the spouses the only relevant issue? Were that all there was to the issue, parents disdainful of their children’s spouses would have some sort of judicial recourse to fall back on in order to prevent a marriage. Where bribery, exclusion, or the occasional kidnapping failed, why should a parent not be able to go before a judge and say, “This marriage must be stopped! I will not let my daughter marry a jackass/Mexican/Jew! (circle one)” The truth is that there is more to marriage than sex. While I, personally, am wary of the notion of marriage in general, I’m told—and I seem to recall from my more romantically-inclined youth—that things like love and trust come into it. In other words, there are factors of conscience and will, else we would still be arranging marriages and buying husbands for our daughters.
Homosexuality as an “emotional tendency”? Where to begin with that? Science, obviously, but Fay not only isn’t in the ballpark, he’s nowhere on the map.
Polygamy? It’s a different argument. This is the convenient thing of blindly asserting that there is no constitutional basis about gay marriage. Equal protection does not pertain to numbers. Incest? It is a deeper psychological and sociological argument, and in the interest of avoiding a ridiculously long paragraph, it should be enough to consider exploitative dynamics and pedophilic grooming. So why not children? It seems to me that society recognizes a different thought process in the young; indeed, it is good enough for the Supreme Court of the United States to spare juvenile offenders capital punishment. Bestiality? In seventeen years of awareness of gay-rights issues, ne’er once has a homophobe, traditionalist, heterosurpemacist—whatever we might call them—explained to me issues of consent. (And, in consideration of those who would assert that some animals such as dogs can be willing, I do not agree that operant conditioning brings informed consent. A dog that wants to get its rocks off is not making decisions the same as two consenting adult lovers.) Indeed, the necessary rejection of consent implicit in zealous comparisons of homosexuality to bestiality, necrophilia, and pedophilia is at lest somewhat unsettling. Either gay men are the equivalent of dogs, corpses, or children, or I’m not letting my daughter anywhere near Christians.
And Christianity is fair game. Mr. Fay asserts that “any assertion of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment”. This is a classic argument in which one is not being treated equally unless one is superior. We hear it in book bannings, state prayer arguments, and abortion politics as well. At least.
Ignorance, denigration, supremacism. Why do these partners always seem to travel together?
Social dysfunction? The Mormon Church has been “intimidated”? This is reminiscent of D. W. Griffith. Next thing you know, gays will be eating fried chicken at the state house and kicking their stinky socks up on their desks.
I would, of course, recommend Stephanie Coontz’s Marriage: A History to Mr. Fay. While it is not necessarily proper to say that the tradition has been in place for 2,000 years, I can assure him that people thought long and hard before overturning such traditions as bastard laws, bribes (dowries), and the status of wives as property of their husbands.
On each point, Mr. Fay has missed the target entirely. I often say of some peculiar arguments that if you throw enough darts, you will eventually hit the bulls-eye. But this is macabre. He is gouging out eyes, nailing asses, lodging tiny daggers in people’s throats, and he hasn’t even made it to the parking lot yet. Maybe he should wait to know where the dart board actually is before so casually throwing sharp things about.
And as for Ms. Jeglum, if the state of journalism today is that facts are so irrelevant, the University might as well shut down the journalism school altogether, and start handing out degrees in Propaganda, or maybe Blogging.
I also disagree with the people who are saying that the Daily is an inconsequential paper, and the whole thing needs to be ignored.
We all know the voting public is not necessarily the most educated/intelligent bunch, and easily could be swayed or misinformed by a “respected” college newspaper. What tha fuck do they know about what to read and what not to??
I know that sounds incredibly condescending, but its also the truth. Most people are dumb, dumbfucks–just like the dude who original bigoted article. Therefore, their stupidity must be countered with some semblance of rationality.
yo, bd, don’t write an entire novel in the comments section!!
Eli, you forgot to tell us the point of your story — but I think I can guess it. We already know that young people often spout half-baked, poorly reasoned opinions. And we know that a newspaper amplifies these opinions. So are you saying we should shut down student papers? Nope. Are you saying student papers should be run by professionals instead of students? Nope. Are you saying we should raise admission standards at UW to eliminate lightweights? Nope. Are you saying UW is not a “respectable” university? Maybe, but that doesn’t seem like your main point. Here’s my guess: your point is that Fay and Jeglum are annoying. That’s all.
Would Jerglum have printed KKK-type logic if someone wrote about that in a letter to the editor… stating they had an “opinion” about the “lesser” minorities & having completely asinine, ignorant “logic/information” to back their so called argument up. When does printing an “opinion” become just another way to spout hate & ignorance ideologies? Do you really want to start the reputation of your editorial column becoming a soapbox for illogical hate mongers?
Go OKC Potatoes!!!
What I find most concerning here isn’t Fray’s opinions, which any reasonably person can see are bullshit. I’m concerned that the moment the left speaks out against free speech (it’s an OPINION LETTER to a college newspaper, for chrissake, not the State of the Union Address), we give the right good cause to take free speech away from us.
I mean, it’s an OPINION LETTER! To a COLLEGE NEWSPAPER! I’m sure the responses to it, which I imagine will likely also be printed in the Daily, will be much more well-reasoned.
Conclusion: if we don’t allow the idiot bigots on the right to make these arguments, how can we debunk them?
I’m sure I’ll get ridiculed for this, but that’s what slog is for right?
I was with you right up until the last sentence. I firmly believe that all opinions ARE valid. The caveat to that of course is that they are valid until you try and force your opinion on someone else. I’m a very big fan of letting people believe what ever they want. One’s beliefs and opinions are shaped by one’s own unique experience. Who can say that one person’s experience is any more valid than another? I know there’s a lot of gray area in that thinking, but I want there to be. It’s all about dialogue and working out differences of opinions.
In the context of Jeglum and the article at the UW, Fey’s awful opinion IS valid. It’s uninformed, stupid, rooted in fear, and I stridently think it’s a crock of crap, but as long as he doesn’t try to restrict my rights or be an asshole about his opinion I’m happy to let him keep it. In deciding to publish his opinion though he has opened it up to public commentary and the local public opinion disagrees with him greatly. That brings us to Jeglum. As a journalist, as young, undeveloped, and also apparently uninformed as she is, she still has the responsibility to uphold journalistic integrity. That includes fact checking and making sure what is published in her paper is well written. Fey’s piece was just an uninformed, poorly written opinion that has no place in a paper anywhere. A blog? Sure. Interpersonal dialogue? Fine. Protesting out on the HUB Lawn with a sign telling gay people they are a “problem to be dealt with”. Go for it. That’s all “free speech”, but NOT publishing his awful screed is not a restriction of free speech, it’s encouraging responsible dialogue and debate. It would have been far more appropriate, and interesting, to get a law scholar or even a divinity student to lay out a well thought out opposition to gay marriage based on research, fact, and thoughtfulness.
In the world of editing, this was an EPIC FAIL!
Period.
I went to Wenatchee High School and was friendly with Jeglum. She was batshit crazy back then. She had the very fervent opinion that ” Harry Potter was the devil” At the time hardline christians were in a flap about pop culture focusing on witchcraft and wizardry corrupting youth or something. It’s unfortunate her morality views and concerns for saving humanity have eclipsed her ability to function in the workplace.
No, criticism of Jerglum IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY VALID just because a stuck up snob like Mr. Sanders is promoting an agenda, expressing an opinion and writing in a tone best reserved for Bill Orielly does not make his opinion any better or superior. This story is a cold war tactic. Bait and switch
sigh.
Jerglum is doing a good job at the daily and as offensive and stupid Fay’s opinion is to me it is important that such opinions get included so we can all see how stupid they are. I mean hell. There are stupider publications. Just look at The Stranger. Reverse Polarity needs to grow up and get into the real world instead of grinding on and on with your childish fit. Conservatives and Liberals really make things suck for the rest of us with their stupid agendas, their stupid extremes and their stupid anger. It just goes to show that any moron with a credit card can get a computer and if you give a million monkeys a million computers , eventually one of `em will eventually eek out a hateful , childish screed.
@NewsCat–as a graduate of the UW’s journalism program, I can assure you that not only is there a Media Ethics class (required for graduation), Jeglum was actually a fellow student of mine the quarter I took the course.
to Eli Saunders and everyone else (and I truly mean this–no sarcasm): If you think the UW’s journo program sucks so much that all students who graduate from it are lacking in their writing, reasoning and moral skills, PLEASE volunteer your time or money to help better develop the learning opportunities available to students. There ARE bright students in the program–they simply get burned out from either trying to chase their dreams right into the unemployment line, or being lumped in with the rest of their logic-lacking classmates.
Let’s hear it for comment No. 1, and ask why this piece ever appeared under the News heading; it’s just the Stranger playing its self-appointed role as the Neo Gay News, arguing instead of reporting on issues so its readers could be informed and decide for themselves. There was a time the Stranger passed as a ‘newspaper.’ Long ago.
If Fey had wrote an article IN FAVOR of gay marriage that was full of lies and circular logic, would you people be as angry as you are now? I don’t think so. You say you’re angry because Jerglum’s a bad editor, but the real reason seems to be that a homophobic article was published in what is supposed to be a liberal newspaper.
Ah Christ! There’s nothing worse than having a 99% of the time liberal, profane, tolerant paper totally screw the pooch and lose ANY credibility you might have enjoyed by trying to muzzle other people!!!! God.
I don’t see why gay rights activists see this article as a bad thing. As long as the dialog about these issues remains closed peoples opinions will never change. Changing people’s minds about controversial issues is the type of thing that will prevent unfortunate mistakes such as the passing of Prop 8. If I was a gay rights activist I would look at this article as an opportunity to have a conversation with every bigot on campus that agrees with this line of reasoning and would relish the opportunity to listen and to talk, and start changing minds.
“…Whether or not based in logic or even completely offensive, all people need to be allowed a safe and non-violent outlet for their opinions. As the “official” paper, the Daily was just a poor choice for Fey to publish his in.”
So? He can get a journal like most people in recorded history did. or he can use myspace like all the rest of the stupid self-gratifing children out there. Mindless ramblings and offensive graphics aren’t the best filler for a newspaper of any sort.
Was there ever an explanation for the sheep?
Seriously, why a sheep?
Has anyone considered the possibility that, weak as it was, Fay’s letter may have been the best that had been received by the paper from that side of the debate? Besides, smart, clear-thinking people are not the only ones who influence major issues, so why should they be the only ones given access to a public forum. There is no IQ test to speak at a city council or town hall meeting–the same ought to be true of a friggin college paper’s op-ed page.
He got paid from our tax dollars