On the Barometer Editorial Regarding Blackface etc.

I have gone back and forth regarding this editorial all weekend.

On the one hand, I'm very glad to see the Baro address the issue at all. This incident involved not a columnist but a staff decision, so I can't say I'm all that surprised (but yes, still somewhat surprised) at the choice to cover the issue in some fashion.

On the other hand, I think it's kind of a weasely editorial. Let me explain.

The editorial starts with this:

We've spent a week talking about it, and it's created quite a stir on campus. The editorial board of The Daily Barometer felt that the matter required more than just simply running the column submitted by staff columnist Renée Roman Nose.

A few weeks ago, we ran a news story that included a graphic of a college-aged male wearing all black. He was also wearing black face paint. This graphic was designed in the name of school spirit, but it didn't come off that way to some members of our campus community.

It came off as offensive. It could be seen as a throwback to minstrel-era comedians mocking African heritage.

We explain this not in ignorance, but in order to pose a question.

A few things:

1. In the first paragraph, they note that they felt a greater response was needed than just Renee's column, but that doesn't explain why they held her column. We'll return to that decision later in the editorial.

2. They note that they are not explaining why the blackface is offensive out of ignorance - whose ignorance? It seems clear that the Baro staff was ignorant about this issue since they ran the photo in the first place. The ignorance of the reader? Well, if OSU students are so busy defending the black facepaint on Facebook, then it seems they are a wee bit ignorant as well. So - who is ignorant, again?

That sentence sounds like a way to weasel out of taking responsibility for the staff's own ignorance.

Moving on:

More than a week after this story ran in The Daily Barometer, Roman Nose submitted a column explaining and apologizing for the misdeed that the staff of the Barometer had perpetrated.

In literal shock and dismay that we hadn't heard about this issue before our columnist submitted something she intended to have printed, we chose - as an editorial board - to hold her column until further notice.

Holding Roman Nose's column was not a decision made to silence the voices of those offended. It was not a decision made to hide the something we did wrong.

It was a decision made so that we could appropriately and accurately respond to the campus community - with the opinions of Barometer staff members, community members and especially the opinions and understanding given to us by Renée Roman Nose.

OK. So the Baro's editorial board held the column because they were caught by surprise - due to their ignorance - and wanted to have a chance to formulate a response before they ran her column.

That's weaselly. And kind of pathetic. Again, we have a suggestion that the Baro staff was ignorant about what they did, reluctant as they may be to admit it. Second, we have a pretty sad use of their power: They held Renee's column because it would make them look bad, and they wanted a chance to come up with some sort of response before it was printed.

If I, as a columnist or reader, or as a subject of a news story, were to be in the same position, it's highly unlikely that the Baro would extend the same offer to me. I think this was a case of panicked CYA, and a shameful one at that, since the Baro's learning from Roman Nose's column hinged in no way on whether or not it had been printed. Better the Baro print her column when she submitted it and deal with the fact that they fucked up, stepping into the conversation when they learned enough to have something useful to say.

Also, the fact that they did not hear about this issue before the column's submission suggests a few things:

One, that they don't have any connections to the communities that get upset about things like racism on the front page, the implications of which are not good, since the communities were likely people of color and their anti-racist allies and friends.

Two, that people in said communities did not go the Baro staff with their concerns. Speaking from experience, I can safely suggest that this is the case because the Baro has historically been very unwelcoming to anyone the hyper-cliquish staff deems outsiders. Outsiders, of course, being anyone who is not friends with the staff.

Next, the editorial contains of the lamest statements I've ever heard:

Members of the community have asked how it is possible that we could have completely missed the boat on how that was offensive.

To this we ask, couldn't that be a good thing that the era of offensive mockery is now far enough behind us that it was not present in our active memory?

Could you display your privilege any more prominently? It's not quite inducing vomiting yet. But it's close.

Seriously.

Here's what I heard: "Isn't it a good thing we are so privileged to have no knowledge of blackface?"

Never mind the fact that every other year, some dumbshit fraternity makes national news for hosting a blackface party. That's just news - and why would the members of a newspaper's editorial board want to keep up on something as useless as news?

Or how about this: "Isn't it a good thing we are ignorant of this aspect of the history of racism in America?"

For fuck's sake, Baro. Just because you know something about history - be it blackface or the Armenian genocide of 1915 - does not mean you endorse or condone said historical fact.

Also, that is a profoundly anti-intellectual argument in that it portrays ignorance of history as a good thing. Coming from a newspaper located on a college campus, that's kind of....bad.

The fact that the editorial employs that poor of an argument shows just how badly they are grasping at any excuse not to own their ignorance on this one.

The editorial closes with a plea:

After a week of pondering and asking ourselves what the correct response would be, we understand the correct response is to open our minds, open our doors and hear what our campus is telling us. We understand that an apology for the unintentional offense was necessary.

Promoting a culture of fear and lack of inclusiveness goes against the lessons learned in difference, power and discrimination courses and the lessons we accumulate as contributing members of the campus community.

It is important for a thriving student media that all students participate in the conversation. Please, write a letter to the editor. Stop and visit the Barometer office. Give us a call.

We actually do want to hear what we do wrong. We want to improve as we strive to act professionally in working toward career goals.

I am of two minds about this.

On the one hand, I do not want to discard what I think is a genuine request on the Baro's part. This represents an opportunity for growth and learning, and that's good. I hope students take them up on this.

On the other, the Baro is constantly inviting people to come talk to them.... but they almost always fail to listen.

The Baro staff, in my experience, has always been a closed clique of people. I'm certainly not the only person to notice this. So historical experience makes me very skeptical of this newfound desire for openness.

Overall, I think the editorial was pretty poor on reasoning and responsibility. While it officially apologized, it tripped over itself to avoid any sort of blame (and perhaps the attendant consequences?), and it shows a dangerous lack of understanding on the relevant issues.

Plus, the decision to hold Roman Nose's column comes across - and was - a poor move designed almost solely to cover their collective asses.

The Baro needs to do better.