Hiding behind the 1st Amendment

The UMass student paper has made its predictable response to the out cry of Gonzalez's opinion column last week.

The editors justification of running the column is as follows:

"As a news organization, The Collegian lists the First Amendment as its most important value and asset. We do not hold back from printing news stories, columns or editorials that may upset our readership - instead, we seek to both inform and stir debate through our publication. Our decision to publish Gonzalez's column - an opinion piece written by a member of our campus community - is the only way for us to live up to this ideal."

This is a nice dodge and is total poppycock. Every time the paper runs an editorial or opinion article, they are saying the opinion is worth considering and is justifiable. The editors may or may not agree with the opinion expressed but by publishing it, they are saying it is worth considering.

How can I make a charge like this without discussing this with the students and faculty running and advising the paper? Simple. When was the last story or opinion piece run that said white supremacy is a good thing?

I would venture to guess NEVER. And if the American Nazi Party submitted an opinion piece to the paper it would be rejected out of hand (and I would agree with that).

However, if the paper truly believes its mission is to inform and provoke debate, it should seek and publish such works in the name of fairness. But they will not for the simple reason those who express white supremacy views are not legitimate and should not be given the opportunity to spread their warped views. The paper (and editors) will make a value judgment that the view point of the article is not worth publishing. By publishing the article by Gonzalez, the paper is saying his foolish views are worth considering.