Figuring out how to structure this editorial stretched me in a way that I had not anticipated. By publishing two opinion pieces under anonymous titles, we deviated from past practices. While our Constitution does not prohibit anonymous sources, it states that they should only be used in specific circumstances
The Constitution states, “[The anonymous source] should be used after consulting with the editor(s) only when it is clear that the source could be damaged by disclosure, the source is necessary for the story, and the story is necessary for the wellbeing of the community.”
This week, I have wrestled with whether or not the “MLK Day Critique” that we recieved qualifies under those terms or not. My editorial is a reflection on that choice and the effects of granting anonymity to that piece. The following words are mine and mine alone. They do not reflect the thoughts of The Weather Vane as an organization.
When approached by a staff member who knew someone wanting to share an anonymous opinion, I was hesitant at first. I genuinely believe that people should be able to hold their opinions openly and do so without feeling guilt or shame. The opinions each of us develop come from our personal experiences and the contexts we are exposed to—we are products of our environment.
Not only are we products of our environment, but we are often surrounded by people with similar ideas and backgrounds, which makes it next to impossible to truly understand a person and how their experiences have shaped them. For this reason, I felt that it was important to publish the “MLK Day Critique” article. The sentiment expressed is one that many people across the country share.
The phrase “racist against white people” is one prevalent in media and its presence in our paper this week has hurt members of our community and made them feel isolated. It is a phrase that I am not accustomed to hearing in my circles at EMU, but I often hear extended family members of mine say things of that nature when I visit them.
Most of my family is from Southwestern Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky, and one thing that I have noticed in my interactions with them is that there is a lot of specific language surrounding racial equity and cultural diversity that they have never encountered. Many of them grew up working in rural areas, and the extended family I visit most often lives in a small, coal mining town in the mountains. I am often shocked by some of the language that they use, but I have to remind myself that they do not use it out of hate or the intention to harm. They just don’t have the context or experience to talk about issues of race and culture without sounding insensitive.
If I had seen that phrase prior to Wednesday night, I would have insisted on our staff member or one of the editors sitting down to talk about how those words would turn away the group they were trying to reach. I was immediately worried because I did not want the author’s voice to get lost due to the choice to use those four words. However, I also did not feel it was my position to change their words.
I truly want all students to feel comfortable sharing their opinions in The Weather Vane, but I also believe that every individual deserves to feel safe, and unfortunately, the opinions people hold can make others in the community feel unwelcome. In the instance of the “MLK Day Critique” and the convocation that prompted the reaction, two different parties were hurt. Cases such as this are what a space such as the opinion page is for. It is a place that multiple voices can come together to hear and try to understand the needs of the diverse perspectives we have on campus.
When deciding to move forward with publishing the piece, I held onto this phrase from it: “I desire to live in a world of love and equality….” As someone who also holds onto that dream, I am dedicated to creating a space to help foster a community of love and equality. In the future, I want to work more closely with students’ opinions on this matter. It sounds like everyone is on the same page in wanting to foster a caring environment. The next step is finding a way to attain that.
In order to facilitate a productive dialogue, I want to invite more opinion pieces from all sides of this issue and work closely with authors to write a letter that will be heard by the other party, instead of pushed to the side.
Sharing one’s opinion, especially on a small campus, is vulnerable. Because of that, we lose a lot of the context that comes with the opinions of a person. By working more closely to act as a “translator” between groups, I hope that any hurt felt can be reconciled and that this will mark the beginning of a much-needed dialogue on campus.
