A panel of four professors, Chronicle Editor Greg Pessin, protesters and students Carliss Chatman and Kelly Black and hundreds of students gathered last night to continue debate over The Chronicle's decision to run a March 19 advertisement opposing reparations for slavery. The two-and-a-half-hour discussion, at first broad, eventually turned into a back-and-forth debate between Pessin and members of the audience.
In addition, suggesting that the battle is not yet over, protesters met privately after the forum, and several faculty members met Sunday to discuss the situation. Neither protest organizers nor faculty members at the meetings could be reached for comment.
Four panelists-seniors Black and Chatman, African-American literature scholar Houston Baker and Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist William Raspberry-opposed the paper's initial decision to run the ad.
Three panelists-constitutional law expert William Van Alstyne, former Time Magazine journalist Susan Tifft and Pessin, a senior-supported The Chronicle's decision.
To Baker, an English professor, the printing of the ad sent a message that the paper "will vilify for money. It asks for contributions to horrific, ill-informed, unscholarly, racist material," Baker said. "Why did this happen at Duke?"
Pessin reiterated the position he has held for the past week, emphasizing the importance of the spirit behind the First Amendment. "Much of the content of The Chronicle is offensive to readers every day," Pessin said. "We're sorry content offends people but we're firm in our belief... that free exchange, especially, sometimes comes at the expense of comfort."
The
Most panelists other than Pessin, Chatman and Black remained relatively quiet, as audience members addressed the majority of their questions to Pessin.
Prior to leaving early, Van Alstyne-Thomas and William Perkins professor of law-said he was grateful that The Chronicle had decided to run the ad and emphasized that the decision was not a legal issue.
Raspberry, Knight professor of the practice of communications and journalism, emphasized that The Chronicle does not operate in a vacuum and must at some point address the broader interests of the community. He emphasized the complexities of the issue. "[My greatest concern is that] we will end up trying to change [Chronicle] policy, as though we've somehow made headway on the thing that has sparked the protest," Raspberry said.
Several protesters agreed that their intense feelings stem mostly from a general feeling that the University does not adequately support its minority students, and that race relations at Duke remain tense.
Many criticized The Chronicle's decision and its coverage of black issues. "This is the last straw for The Chronicle," said Chatman, who co-chairs the Black Student Alliance political action committee with Black. "For Duke to have a healthy community, The Chronicle needs to be more inclusive... of all communities." She suggested that the paper change the way it evaluates both its news coverage and ad decisions.
Baker
But Tifft, Eugene C. Patterson professor of the practice of journalism, disagreed. She raised the example of a newspaper in a predominantly homophobic community and the propriety of consulting its readership about news decisions.
Pessin added that The Chronicle's job is not to represent any particular community. "In its news decisions [and] editorial judgment, it should not represent everyone," Pessin said. "The Chronicle does not represent Duke University. The Chronicle covers Duke University."
Other audience members and panelists questioned the way in which the ad was run. One audience member suggested that The Chronicle could have run a news story including the content of the ad.
Black, who is president of the Duke chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said she felt political opinion should be strictly reserved for the paper's editorial pages.
Pessin admitted that "hindsight is 20/20" but said the ability to submit political ads places a check on a newspaper's own political views. "The only alternative to giving people the ability to provide space would be to ration speech," Pessin explained. "That alternative runs... counter to the idea of freedom of the press."
Ultimately, audience members and panelists agreed that this discourse must continue.
Ellen Mickiewicz, the discussion's moderator and director of the Sanford Institute's DeWitt Wallace Center for Communications and Journalism, said the center would be willing to host similar forums in the future.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.