In response to the anonymous poster (? Readers lonely, bitter after V-day? Feb. 15, 2008), to say that service members are “all a bunch of trigger-happy white males that only like to murder innocent women and children” is grossly inaccurate and ridiculous. The most recent statistics I found were from 2005. In that year, white males made up just over half of all service members, 55 percent. In case you?re not clear, that means 45 percent were not white males. Females made up 20 percent of all service members. You can find more of these inconvenient details we call ?facts? online. In addition, even though you?re too cowardly to post your name when you write these slurs, you should still stick with words you know how to spell. Apparently, ?Mai Lai? and ?sow? are above your reading level.
Even more hateful than the comment was The Badger Herald?s editorial decision to select it for the print edition of the paper. The feedback page states, “Please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks? may be deleted.” The Badger Herald staff screened the comment and approved it to appear online, but apparently they wanted even more people to see the crude remarks. Out of all the comments posted about The Badger Herald stories for an entire week, the editors deliberately selected that one to go to print. To post it with the label, ?Your best online feedback? does a huge disservice to us, the students of the University of Wisconsin. That was the very best comment they could find to represent our students? opinions? The editors could have selected a ?thoughtful, on-topic and respectful? comment, unless they printed it because it represents their own viewpoint, and it?s an easy way to shirk responsibility.
I am a female veteran and a student here. I realize many people believe they have the right to determine what qualifies as hate speech and enforce those standards only when it?s convenient for their agenda. They don?t apply the same constraints to themselves, however. I expect that hypocrisy, that double standard from individuals. But from a newspaper?
Whatever happened to journalistic integrity? It?s an obvious double standard. If that same statement had targeted a race or a religion, or had been homophobic, the editors wouldn?t have put it online, much less in print: It would have been called hate speech. Editors use common sense guidelines to determine which comments are productive and relevant and which ones are blatantly offensive stereotyping. It?s not a violation of First Amendment rights to exercise good judgment. The editors are not violating the KKK?s rights if they refuse to print racial slurs someone posted anonymously on their website.
It?s disappointing that we have someone on our campus small-minded enough to make such blatantly false, hateful generalizations about a group of people. It?s even more disappointing that we have a newspaper unprofessional and irresponsible enough to print these epithets under the pretense of ?freedom of speech.?
Jessica Grey
UW Junior, English
