OPINION & EDITORIAL
Defining discourse
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
- Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
- $$FC (December 6, 2007)
- In a bind (December 5, 2007)
- Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Where did free speech go? (October 9, 2003)
- Limgaugh's success prevails despite another obstacle (October 6, 2003)
- Limbaugh's success prevails despite another obstacle (October 6, 2003)
- Only part of the problem (October 14, 2003)
- Society fails to regard all instances of racism equally (February 22, 2006)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Monday, October 6, 2003
Free speech is again in the news, but this time in the most unlikely forums: ESPN’s Sunday NFL Countdown.
Rush Limbaugh’s remarks referencing Philadelphia’s Donovan McNabb were intended as a comment on the state of today’s media and their interpretation of race as a societal issue. Misguided as the comments were in an arena dealing with sports rather than social issues, Limbaugh entered into a discourse that deserves attention from all sides. Limbaugh’s comments are worthy of, at the very least, discussion. Yet, many discontented voices clamored for his silence.
This should be troubling to defenders of free speech nationwide. These advocates of free speech are not lost on this campus.
Clarence Page, while lecturing in Madison just last week on ethical media practices, was quick to censure Limbaugh’s comments, but Page added that this nation should be pursuing more discourse on race, not less. We agree. Nowhere in our readings of the First Amendment do we see exceptions made for idiocy or lack of tact. When the national mood shifts from openness to prohibition, it also shifts from tolerance to intolerance and reason to ignorance. How we handle differences of culture and race remains an issue in this multi-ethnic country and on this multi-ethnic campus. To sweep aside dialogue that may be a bit disquieting is contrary to the intent of discourse itself.
We as an Editorial Board, and the editors who monitor opinion content, encourage this discourse whenever a particular opinion is printed on our pages. We are interested in one thing: presenting a multi-faceted campus dialogue on issues relevant to students. Content contributing to this goal deserves and receives such consideration.
Last week’s cartoon content reflected this desire for such diverse points of view. As always, we invite response and will make every effort to print a wide spectrum of ideas on racial politics, seg-fees or any particular issue of student concern. To this end, we have printed much of the heated criticism the cartoons induced.
Our focus remains on presenting a student-oriented forum to continue the fundamental mission of this University: To continually sift through the rhetoric and pour through the issues — by this method alone the truth can be found.
The search is forever hindered when we, as citizens, wish to silence those who offend us.
The beauty of the First Amendment is that its results can evoke precisely the feelings in us that motivate vigorous thought and action. It therefore functions as the fundamental tool for collective progress and creativity. On the pages of this newspaper, understanding of open discourse is held as our most important principle.
