Recently two Editorial Board members at the Daily Cardinal published an op-ed claiming that affirmative action in higher education is discriminatory. This sparked a slew of comments and rejoinder articles both in opposition and defense — some of which came from sources far outside the University of Wisconsin. Roughly two weeks later, on April 13, Jennifer Conlin of the New York Times published an article referencing the Daily Cardinal, which was a celebrated lift that put the paper in a ray — dim as it may be — of national spotlight.

This array of outside attention focused on our student-run campus papers is a reminder that student newspapers, and those who organize them, often act to represent the university to the outside world.

In light of this, it is painful to see the editorial staff and Cardinal as a whole publish an article that handles the highly complex and controversial topic of affirmative action with such certainty and, frankly, ignorance.

It is a popular belief that we know the solutions to life’s problems. However, in more cases than not, this is simply incorrect. Issues such as evolution are not controversial; enough is known on the topic to accept the theory as fact. Conversely, however, subjects such as abortion or affirmative action contain so many unanswered questions that, if one is realistic with himself or herself, it is impossible to entirely accept one side or the other. 

So let’s get something straight — claiming that you understand the complexities of affirmative action and know the solution is not only a lie, but exemplifies ignorance.

The simple solution to this is admitting our confusion. It is about time we asked more questions rather than trying to cast opinion as fact.

Any average student is entitled to believe and publicize their views, right or wrong, as they like. However, a paper publishing an opinion — especially on a controversial topic —should, to an extent, reflect this healthy confusion by publishing opinion pieces that spark needed debate. The point of publishing opinion is not to act as a soapbox for people to spew their opinions, but to encourage thought by constructively offering opinions. By publishing opinions that do all the thinking for the reader, such as by erasing all uncertainty from words that are in their definition uncertain, the publication destroys all chance for debate. This is especially hazardous when those who represent the paper ignore this rule during a time of increased outside attention.

Any publication by those who hold a managerial position and represent the paper, which represents the student body albeit to a lesser extent, reflects upon the student body.

As a student of UW, I don’t want non-university related readers to see my representative student newspaper displaying ideas that not only don’t represent the newspaper, school or myself, but more importantly, are also widely one dimensional and accept them as representative.

As an aside:

While the paper is labeled independent, everyone understands its connection to the university. Furthermore, it has benefited from this association as seen in the Times article that classifies the Cardinal as, “one of two independent student-run newspapers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.”

I ask not that student managers of student newspapers write opinion under pseudonyms, but if they feel the compulsion to exercise their opinion on a controversial topic, they at least do so with the intent of provoking thought, not providing one side of a closed discussion. Instead of creating an atmosphere for discussion, the op-ed run by the Cardinal lead to an onslaught of he-said she-said racially and emotionally packed responses that accomplished nothing but further division.

A final note:

I have avoided stating my own opinion on the issue at note and I will not break that silence now. Nonetheless, I cannot ignore one giant point in the Cardinal piece that I have yet to see addressed.

The beginning of the article equates checking the race box on a school application as dehumanizing and something that makes our race define us — it impedes us from seeing past race.

However, being defined by your race is perfectly acceptable. What is not is others regarding you as lesser because of that definition. Ending racism doesn’t mean you think of everyone as the same — it means you understand other’s differences and accept them regardless.

Samuel Fritz ([email protected]) is a freshman majoring in biomedical engineering.