Newspapers across the United States have a constitutional right to publish just about whatever they choose. But there are responsibilities that come along with that right.
On Tuesday, the editorial staff at Wayne State University’s student newspaper, The South End, decided to publish an opinion column that has since infuriated Arab American leaders, who say the piece promotes hatred and could provoke violence.
The column, written by Joe Fisher, was headlined “Islam sucks” and claims the faith “presents a danger to the welfare of many,” refers to Palestinians as “subhuman” for “dancing in the streets and rejoicing” over the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and concludes “the Muslim world is the poorest, most illiterate, backward, unhealthy, unenlightened, deprived and weakest of all the races.”
At the top of his column, Fisher indicated he is not fond of any religious faith and goes on to claim it is not Muslims he dislikes. “I just dislike their faith,” he wrote. But his sincerity in the latter statement is difficult to accept given the racist commentary he provides in his conclusion.
South End Editor in Chief Jason Clancy defended his paper’s decision to run the editorial commentary on grounds that personal columns do not necessarily represent the publication.
While we cannot and will not attempt to make a decision about whether The South End should have published the column - as the decision is that of the staff of that paper alone - we do offer the following comments on the responsibilities a newspaper has to society.
It is our personal rights and responsibilities concerning the First Amendment, which provides for freedom of speech, press and religion, which are at the heart of this controversy.
While it is our constitutional right to say what we please, there are rules of common human decency that we must play by.
When applied to the ideals of American justice, a newspaper’s opinion page is a holy shrine. It is a daily embodiment of First Amendment freedoms. That position comes with responsibilities.
An opinion page provides a service to newspaper consumers. Its primary concern is to provide thought-provoking commentary to its audience. Some readers may agree with these thoughts, others may not - that is acceptable and to be expected.
An opinion page’s duty is to enlighten its readers, not to promote ignorance. We fear Fisher’s column did more of the latter.
If there is one good thing to come from the publication of this column it is that it has inspired, or rather infuriated, people to discuss these issues. But sometimes things can do more harm than good. Perhaps Fisher’s column illustrates that.
An opinion page is a forum to attack issues, not people. Prejudiced speech, like that found in Fisher’s column, attacks groups of people, not an idea, precept or institution.
Attacking people for any reason, whether it be race, gender, faith, sexual orientation, culture, age, etc., is wrong.
The controversy surrounding this column comes at the same time a survey released by The Detroit News indicates 70 percent of people in Michigan somewhat agree or strongly agree with law enforcement officers taking extra precautions when screening Arab Americans at airports.
However, 63 percent of those polled said they oppose racial profiling. And 71 percent said they were not hostile toward Arab Americans.
These numbers are disturbing. One cannot favor stricter security for one group and not favor racial profiling. That is exactly what racial profiling is.
We need to get away from a culture that approves of racism. For some reason, we understand it is wrong when it comes to certain groups, such as blacks. But when the hate is directed at other groups, we brush it off. This needs stop.
It’s just as wrong to say hateful things against Arabs and Muslims as it is about blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos and any other race, culture or religion.
No, Fisher’s racist opinions do not reflect the opinions of The South End’s staff. But the choice to run them does reflect on the newspaper.
Perhaps, it was not Fisher’s intentions to attack a race so much as it was to assault the institution of the Islam religion. But he goes beyond that, spouting racial slurs and unsupported facts.
Fisher’s piece is poorly written, but that is not an excuse. The South End editor should have worked with the columnist to better display his thoughts in a more tasteful and decent manner.
Yes, Fisher has a constitutional right to spout off ignorant commentary. And, yes, The South End has a constitutional right to publish it. But what is legal is not always justified.
It is up to the staff at The South End to answer for and defend its decision to publish Fisher’s opinions. And it is up to the publication’s readers to decide if those reasons are valid enough to lose respect.
Newspapers have a responsibility to their readers to promote the betterment of society. When they slip away from that duty, they risk their own integrity.
