Sometimes kids say the darndest things.
The University of Washington’s student newspaper The Daily, wanting to be topical, relevant and “newsy”, decided to run two opposing op-eds on gay marriage, right next to the STD warnings and article headlined “Women Can Be Computer Scientists Too”, about an on campus lady professor tired of being oggled by pimply nerds in her lecture hall day in and day out.
You’d think, this being Seattle and all, the paper’s foray into the gay marriage issue would be all warm, fuzzy gooeyness. Right?
Or at the very least that it would refrain from comparing gay marriage to bestiality. With an illustration. Of a man. With a sheep. Presumably at City Hall asking for their marriage license.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Talk about baaa–ad ideas.
In an op-ed titled “Gay Marriage, Let’s Think About This“, future Rick Santorum impersonator John Fay looks at the California Supreme Court decision and writes:
“The court argued that forbidding marriage rights to gays is discrimination, “like a person’s race or gender.” Race is a biological state; homosexuality is more of an emotional condition, and we should not, for that reason alone, start passing laws condoning it.
Being homosexual, like other emotional tendencies, doesn’t make someone a bad person, but it’s a problem that needs to be dealt with, not denied.
Now, there are several major problems with legalizing gay marriage. Once you’ve legalized gay marriage, why not polygamy, incest, bestiality or any other form of union? If the only criteria is that people love each other, then who says it’s wrong for a 70-year-old man to marry 10 underage girls?”
Now, while my emotional tendencies were telling me to go up to Seattle with a can of whup-ass, I thought I’d check in with The Daily‘s Editor in Chief Sarah Jeglum first and see if there was a good reason the paper decided to print the sheep-love images– something along the lines of “Oh my god, we were all smoking crack that day and lost our minds.” Jeglum replied to us:
“The illustration was meant to illustrate the columnist’s slippery-slope argument about legalizing gay marriage.
I hope that answers the question.”
Oh, but it doesn’t Sarah, not at all. So we went back to her and asked a.) Just whose idea it was to run an article that was virulently homophobic, b.) Whose idea was it to to illustrate it with a sheep-on-guy image and c.) If it ever occurred to The Daily that equating gay marriage with bestiality and pedophilia might offend well, everybody? Her reply:
“Just like any other illustrated article, the article was read by the illustrator and an illustration was drawn to reflect points made in the column. I can’t speak for Matthew Jackson, but I believe he was illustrating the following point made by John Fay: “Once you’ve legalized gay marriage, why not polygamy, incest, bestiality or any other form of union?”
The implications of the article were considered, as with any article we print.”
Now honestly, while we received many emails from you being outraged about the man-sheep op-ed, our first response was “They can’t be serious.” We were certain that nobody would seriously in good conscience run man-sheep imagery next to a piece about gay marriage. But they are serious.
Now, The Daily can say that it printed the piece as an opinion, which is totally defensible (though I wonder if they’d print a white supremacist’s bullshit as readily as they printed Fay’s crap), but the man-sheep illustration was purely and editorial choice.
A gay veteran who commented on the article basically sums up our “emotional tendencies” perfectly: “This edition of the paper should be publicly burned in Red Square and the author tied to the back of sheep and dragged!”
Rigato
I apologize on behalf of my University and my State… Seriously. We’re in the doghouse on that one, if you’ll pardon the pun.
Oh, and it wasn’t crack. Knowing Seattle, it was heroin.
Joe Moag
Japhy: Print the paper’s editorial email address so that we might further enlighten them…
Tyler
Thanks for running with it! I still have yet to hear back from the Editor on the emails I sent her yesterday, but I did get great feedback from the professors I pointed this out to.
My boyfriend is a current law student at the U and told me that the law school was quick to issue a letter to the editor condemning the piece as well. He did make a point though that, especially in Seattle, this only draws attention to how rididulous this point of view actually is
Let’s keep calling everyone out on their bullshit.
Oh, and like Rigato…I too am sorry that this came out of my alma mater.
Phil
If there are two opposing op-eds, obviously one has to be “homophobic”. You know as well as I do that the opposition has, in some copied words, no rational basis for opposing us. So they can’t argue well. Oh well?
Oh, and I’m going to just throw this out there.
Gay =/= beastiality because animals can’t reciprocate love.
Gay =/= pedophilia because children can’t reciprocate love. (Hence statutory rape laws.)
Gay = polygamy/incest. But so what? Let two consenting adults live and love as they would. There is not enough in this world.
Tyler
Sarah Jeglum Editor in Chief 206-543-2700 [email protected]
Natalie Sikavi Opinion editor: [email protected]
sdandy
Yeah, sadly enough the daily (not even worth the italics) article doesn’t really suprise me. The ‘paper’ was always kind of a joke when I was attending UW. As stupid and ignorant as the article is, it gives them publicity and lets them think that people actually read it and consider it a ‘publication’ (or care about what slop they write about). It always has reminded me of a very high school-ish paper (sorry to hurt the reputation of any quality high school publications). Send some angry emails, maybe even to the administration, then let it die. Act quick and then let the publicity fade.
No, rather keep it going, but go after who is in charge of the paper. Not the students, but the advisors and people who are responsible for the money to keep it going.
Joe Moag
@Tyler: Thanks, Tyler! Already sent some emails!
othniel
I shudder to think what the Texas A & M paper might say.
KJ
Oh, kids. UW grad here. The Daily has a long history of irreverence, and some would say irrelevance. It’s an op-ed piece, and the illustration communicates the silliness of the position, but any editor worth her salt would not acknowledge that.
As to not allowing the position to printed, one then makes proponents of such nonsense martyrs. Stupid should be printed and seen. In the long run, that’s a good thing.
Katie
UW administration
Mark Emmert, President
[email protected]
Phyllis Wise, Provost
[email protected]
Sheila Lange, Vice Provost for Diversity
[email protected]
Joe Moag
@KJ: It seems to me that the idea that people should not comment, get upset, contact the paper, etc., out of outrage over a set of its editorial decisions is foolish. The media is, I thought, a forum for thought. That’s a two way street. Moreover, there is nothing stopping the editor to state, in writing, the reasons behind her choice to pick that commentator and that picture. If it is, as you point assert, irrelevance and “silliness”, then let her say so. If it is something else, the let her say that. The ability to print objections to one’s editorial positions and decisions, and the ability for an editor to defend his or her decisions, is part and parcel of running a paper that purports to cover the news and offer opinions.
Steve
It seems to me that the editors wanted to give the appearance of presenting both sides of an argument, without actually giving cred to the right-wing lunatics, and perhaps with the intent of exposing them as lunatics. So to “balance” their serious editorial, they published a shallow hack piece that the right-wingers will like, but which actually is quite laughable. To any serious intellect, that article merely illuminates the absence of actual intellectual content in the right-wing position.
Joe Moag
@Steve: People are assuming all manner of motives for the editorial decisions behind this: silliness, irreverance, exposing the right wing…
Here’s a radical suggestion: Let the editor state, in writing, what exactly it was that she was thinking.
Kenster999
@Phil: I wouldn’t say that “Gay = polygamy/incest”. Polygamy often involves coercion of young girls, which gets back to the inability to give informed consent. Society may feel it’s right to restrict marriage to just two people at once, and at least the polygamist can marry one person that they love. But restricting it to opposite-sex-only couples means that gay people can’t marry *anyone*.
As for incest, society has a right to prevent incest for biological reasons (birth defects). Interestingly, those risks are not as high as originally thought, and some states are relaxing the limits. (For example, allowing first cousins to marry rather than just second cousins.)
Society has no compelling reason to prevent Teh Gays from getting married — at least none that outweighs the harm imposed on gay people.
Trenton
Oh, lawdamercy. I can’t wait to hear what the reaction was from the Comparative History of Ideas department. I’m e-mailing this to my prof and lecturer friends. They may have a better idea.
And just because it’s Seattle, don’t think it’s a complete bastion of tolerance (though it’s far betterthan most places I have lived). The cities and areas surrounding us are quite conservative and sometimes downright nasty, especially beyond the mountains. We even saw quite a spike in gay-bashings during the last year. They seem to be happening less frequently of late…knock on wood…
GRK
I’m a student at the UW and I have to say that the student paper sucks. I’m part of a student group and the piece that they did on our group was really subpar. Its stories like this that make sure I don’t read that thing. If these “journalists” are the future of their profession than I am quite worried.
RichardR
Thanks, Japhy, for providing the link to Mr. Fay’s full op-ed. It, in turn, gives a link to the opposing piece, by Ms. Sarah Gaither. Hers is sensible, well-written, and clear as his is dumb, sloppy, and befuddled.
Many of the responses to Ms. Gaither’s article, however,demonstrate the intractability of prop. 8 supporters. Take religion out of the dialogue and there’s no dialogue.
Johan
Now, I’d enjoy watching a sheep-dragging as much as anyone, but I’m somewhat concerned for the welfare of the sheep involved…
Phil
@Kenster999:
I have said that polygamy and incest is fine between consenting adults. The “informed” part was assumed to be known. (Y’know, adults and all.)
So yea, polygamy is fine when it’s not of the Mormon variety. (You know that’s what you were thinking about!)
And as to incest, well, no, I don’t think society has a right to prevent birth defects. That draws a far too vague line that allows society to intrude upon personal choices. (The choice to give birth to and raise children with birth defects being one of them.) So between consenting adults, incest is indeed a right that adults should be granted. (I still find it kind of creepy, but I can’t legislate based on that.)
Trenton
@Johan:
Awww…you’re a dear. And I have a solution: The city uses a small herd of goats to keep trim the steep hills around the downtown highways, so we can just set those burly bastards on the Fay. If the dimwit can’t see the difference between gay marriage and his litany of other ills, he probably can’t tell the difference between two bovids and the irony will not be lost on him.
And even if it were, it would still be delightful to watch.
Kevin
So, one thing about the set of opinion articles (yes, there were TWO of them) that should be taken into account before you get your panties in a bunch, is that that anti-prop. 8 piece was accompanied by an illustration of two men holding hands. So, they weren’t just using the the man-sheep image to describe both pieces, just the one. This would also explain why the editor made her comments in defense of the decision to print said illustration. I’ll admit, at first when I heard about this, I had a similar upset reaction, but then took the 1 minute to get all the facts, and it wasn’t as bad as it seems. Yes, the pro-prop. 8 is still offensive, but remember, it’s mainly a regurgitation of what the religious right wing has been saying about anything homosexual for as long as I can remember.
bryce
this conversation is great. i lean toward believing that the editors are ‘on our side’ and gave only a terse response because, for sure, they had plenty of other e-mails to respond to today. kj is right – printing it is, in the long run, a good thing. specifically because it causes an uproar. the editors were inviting the hundreds of e-mails they got in response.
someone made a crack about the texas a&m paper. i can only assume that the battalion is trash. the daily texan, on the other hand, has very completely and fairly covered the event and opinion overload of the past few weeks.
in conclusion:
HOOK EM HORNS
big game tomorrow
Joe Moag
Again, it sure would be swell that instead of us having to sit around wondering and conjecturing as to the motives and intentions of the editor, she were to show the professionalism required and WRITE a response to the issue in the Daily, and explain her decions and her editorial policy.
I think it just great that there are many people who want to cut her a break and are inserting benign motives unto her actions.. Let HER do so.
That is called responsibility, and it comes with the job of being an editor of a paper that prints opions.
CBSoxy
I’m a junior at UW, and I just wanted to point out that both the editor of the Daily and the author of this op-ed *really are* social conservatives. You’re giving them way too much credit when you suggest that they’re really “on our side” and just printed the op-ed to expose the folly of the opposing argument or whatever. Nope – they believe that crap! This is the same editorial board that endorsed right-wing wack-job Dino Rossi in WA’s recent gubernatorial election – over Democratic incumbent, *UW graduate* Christine Gregoire.
What an incredibly poor representation of our school. I assure you that they are completely out of step with the majority of the UW community on this issue – and many other issues too, for that matter…
Michael
I don’t believe it was hateful at all, and he is free to express his opinion (as he did). The article was not offensive to “everyone”. Everything you don’t agree with is not homophobic. And printing something that says that a newspaper should be burned and the columnist tied to the back of a sheep and dragged sounds like a very violent fantasy that reveals the kind of intolerance that you deride in others. That kind of hypocrisy is offensive to everyone.
mds
@Michael: Wow Michael! Sounds like you might of cut and paste and intelligent response you saw on some other blog, deleted specific words and inserted words that work with your “white trash” agenda, and you get to pass as some sort of intelligent life form! Thats pretty smart considering my gut says your an utter moron who works at some sort of sewer plant.
Mark
@mds hey, my dad works at a sewage plant (or water treatment facility) and I assure you that it is impossible to effectively treat sewage and be a complete moron (he has an engineering degree and a specialized thingie for water treatment).
Please do not give michael that much credit.anyone who believes people upset at gay marriage=sheep love accusations are more offensive than the actual accusations is only fit for the position of village idiot.
reversion
Try reading this pretentious piece of crap from the Yale Daily News from last week, and talks about that blowhard Kieth Olbermann like he represents us.
http://yaledailynews.com/articles/view/26600
The guy brings in philosophers and talks about “the good” and how it’s been supposedly “redefined” rather than revealed for what it really is.
“Truth has been divorced from the good, and ‘is’ from ‘ought.'”
He says the above like it’s something to be held in contempt.
“Not everyone in the United States buys into the modern redefinition of the good. Many do not see marriage as a “right,†but as an institution by which the government can help to foster a virtuous and ordered society. They recognize a natural, fundamental difference between men and women, and they believe that a good society is made up of families that are built on the love between a mother and father (rendering null the analogy of racial discrimination). Instead of calling them “irrational,†“prejudiced†or “hateful,†the proponent of gay marriage should recognize that many of his adversaries, given their premises, are loving their neighbors in the best way they know how.”
While I really appreciate philosophy more than most people, he seems to ignore all evidence from reality (ie. scientific fact).
Phil
I get the feeling that he thinks marriage is for procreation only. Wow, sucks to be infertile, hunh?
chuck
My ewe has been weeping inconsolably since this article was published.
She can’t understand why civil-rights should not apply to her as well (grin)
Chris
@othniel: While folks who graduated from UT Austin are loathe to admit there’s anything good that comes out of Texas A&M, we do know that our rival University is steeped in tradition, values and morals. Far more so than UT ever was.
While we make jokes about them, give them indignant hell for everything under the sun, we do know that students and graduates of Texas A&M are widely respected.
Believe me, it’s hard to admit Aggies contribute anything but baaaaad stuff. In truth, they’re very admirable. I wish I’d realized it’s a first class University and graduated there, instead of UT Austin.
While WA State and the Universities here are excellent, I’d not send my kids to school here. Sorry.
Kristin
Current UW undergrad…This really honestly makes me want to go to school somewhere else. For the last two years, whenever I’ve seen one of my queer friends looking righteously angry, I can generally assume she or he has been reading the Daily.
Pongo
Don’t we want print media to expose these repellent ideas so they’re out in the open where we can discuss, refute, defuse, etc. them, rather than simmering beneath the surface?
Universities are supposed to teach young people to ‘think’ (and think for themselves). So it’s almost obligatory to expose them to this kind of awfulness, and I can’t think of a better forum than a university paper (and let’s face it, that article wasn’t much more offensive than, say, that Duggar family with 18 children who teach their kids that evolution is a myth – but still somehow manage to get their own reality TV show!).
Speaking as the sister of a lesbian and the daughter-in-law of a post-op transsexual, I’m all for anything that forces discussion – especially when it reveals there is a marked correlation between bigotry and poor writing skills…