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.
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