Search News


Browse Archives

News

'Sexual Depravity,' Student Fees and the Student Press

February 6, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The column, “Sexual Depravity,” was, by most people’s standards, pretty offensive (and if you think it might offend you, you might consider skipping the next paragraph).

After outlining the steps he takes to determine the level of a woman’s sexual depravity (“What I mean by this is that I ask basic questions like: ‘So...umm....if you caught me fucking your twin sister...would you be angry, or join in?’), the undergraduate writer ends the piece by asserting, “Oh, and for those of you who are thinking, "I would never sleep with you...you're crazy' or 'You're gross,' you don't have to. You don't have to because if this bothers you, I probably wouldn't want to fuck you anyway. Well....unless you're unconscious.”

The controversial column appeared last spring in The Flip Side, a biweekly "alternative" student publication at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire that makes a policy of printing everything submitted to it (unless, the editor-in-chief explains, it’s illegal, plagiarized or advertising content).

This fall, the English department, the publication’s then “administrative home,” voted unanimously to sever its ties to Flip Side, citing, in a statement, interest in “fostering the responsible use of free speech and the mutually respectful community envisioned by the university’s Centennial Plan.” The move left Flip Side in a precarious position in terms of renewing its university funding until Monday, when a new adviser – a geology professor – stepped in.

“That very controversial article that was in the Flip Side, it definitely led to conversations and very strong debate on this campus,” said Kent M. Syverson, the new adviser. “I look at that article and it was juvenile, it was profane, I’m offended by it. I wish he would keep his sexual fantasies to himself, quite frankly, because I’m kind of old school that way. But then when the English department pulls their support for Flip Side because they want Flip Side to exercise ‘responsible use of free speech'.... What responsible use of free speech means to them, and to most people, is 'You’re going to say what I agree with.' And I don’t think that’s a very good model for the modern public university.”

Flip Side's future wasn't in jeopardy because anyone threatened to shut it down per se, but because it lacked the university support to continue receiving significant student activity funds. The funding situation was this: Flip Side has been largely dependent on funds from student activity fees distributed by the Student Senate. In fiscal year 2007, it received $4,000. In fiscal year 2008, it received $6,863, and in fiscal year 2009, $7,200.

However, in order to receive any sum greater than $750, the publication needed both an adviser and an administrative home, explained Mike Rindo, executive director of university communications. “This is a student government issue,” he said. “And in Wisconsin, by statute, student government has the authority to distribute allocatable segregated fees. These are segregated fees paid by the students for student activities. Once these are allocated they become state funds, which is why we need to have an administrative home” – to ensure they can be audited and are distributed according to proper procedures, Rindo explained.

“It should not be portrayed as something that is an administration issue,” Rindo stressed. “Because, as I said, the students have authority over these funds and they have bylaws governing how they distribute the funds.”

Syverson, the new Flip Side adviser, referenced, however, ambiguity in the Student Senate bylaws. And he said he was more generally troubled by the English department’s rationale in withdrawing its sponsorship for the publication -- not just the department's use of the word “responsible” to modify “free speech,” but also the citation of the university’s strategic ("Centennial") plan and its call for mutual respect. The plan states, for instance, “[O]ur goal is to model the habits of mutual respect, civility, and care we want our students to emulate as citizens of the world.”

“I voiced concerns that this [sort of] language might be used as a hammer to stifle First Amendment rights on campus, and this is the first attempt I’ve seen to use the Centennial Plan as a hammer, so to speak,” Syverson said.

The chair of the English department, who originally issued the statement, did not respond to e-mail and phone messages Thursday. However, Bob Nowlan, an associate professor of English who was Flip Side’s original adviser, did. (The publication formed in 2003).

Nowlan explained in an e-mail: “I’ve had little interest in, and no involvement with, the Flip Side since the time I stopped advising the publication. The English Department faculty and staff voted unanimously last semester to end our association with the Flip Side because the paper, in practice, represented values we strongly opposed (in particular, pro-rape and sexual violence, as well as refusal to accept that words have consequences, maintain a material weight and impact, and that what you in practice do does represent an ethical and political position, not a disinterested position of neutrality versus all possible positions out there). In short, the way the staff conceived of language and discourse runs fundamentally contrary to how we conceive, and teach, it -- as well as runs counter to the fundamental values this campus is committed toward representing, supporting, and advancing (including as reaffirmed in our recent University ‘Centennial Strategic Plan’).

“It was always an entirely mutually voluntary association to begin with, between the English Department and the Flip Side, and, as far as we are concerned, they are most welcome to seek another sponsor which supports their values," Nowlan said.

Administratively, Flip Side's new home is the University Centers, an umbrella-like entity for many student services. In an e-mail, the student editor-in-chief, Sara Ann Adams, said the only change to the publication’s editorial policy has been to clarify that it will not print illegal material and that it will attach a disclaimer to potentially controversial pieces.

“The Flip Side attempts to serve as an open forum for student thought and opinion; the only agenda that we have is dialogue about whatever it is that students want to speak up about," Adams said. "At times, this dialogue is more stimulating for some groups of people then others. Not surprisingly, this has often meant that the value of the articles that are submitted to us is sometimes disputed by the powers that be, who can't believe that writers who don't [necessarily] buy into their values and ideologies are still managing to be published. The English department, for example, believes that they have a handle on what material is acceptable and worthwhile, and they and others would like the rest of the university to be forced to adhere to that. I believe requiring such unanimity is dangerous. Sometimes people will say to us, derisively, that we will 'print anything.' When they say that we have no standards, however, what they really mean is 'How dare you not have the same standards that we do?' "

Adams, a senior, said the publication has requested $7,900 for its annual allocation from the Student Senate, and expects to receive $5,200. “This year we've made about $400 in ad money, which is very good for us.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on 'Sexual Depravity,' Student Fees and the Student Press

  • Kudos to Nowlan and the English dept. at UWEC
  • Posted by Dr. Gary Fitsimmons on February 6, 2009 at 10:00am EST
  • It is refreshing to see anyone in higher education standing up for the "responsible use of free speech." Contrary to Syverson's characterization of the phrase as meaning "You’re going to say what I agree with," it means having respoect for people. When "free speech" is used as an excuse to spew forth trash that demeans both the speaker and the hearers it has become something other than free speech. People are forgetting how to disagree respectfully and now a new generation is appearing with many that never learned this virtue. Can chaos be far behind?

  • Free speech
  • Posted by ken schug , profesor at Ill Inst Tech on February 6, 2009 at 10:00am EST
  • Here are the first few entries fron a google searech: famous quotations "free speech"

    Freedom of Speech

    I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
    Voltaire (1694-1778) French writer and historian.

    If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
    George Washington (1732-1799) First President of the USA.

    In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.
    Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1889) French social philosopher.
    The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may thing what we like and say what we think.
    Oliver Wendell Holmes (1809-1894) American author and poet.

    Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it. Martyrdom is the test.
    Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) British author.

  • Posted by Tess , editor on February 6, 2009 at 10:10am EST
  • What bothers me, an editor, about the column is not so much the failed humor and juvenile outlook, but rather the first line of the full column: "So I was feeling a little lazy this week and decided to just grab one of my blogs from MySpace and turn it into an article." If the writer signed his real name to the column and hopes for paid work as a writer, good luck. At least, there's no way I'd hire him if I ran across the column in a quick pre-interview web search. It's not only bad work, but *recycled* work. Words do indeed have consequences.

  • Disclaimers
  • Posted by John K. Wilson at collegefreedom.org on February 6, 2009 at 10:10am EST
  • It's good that there's a resolution to this case, which is not the first time the Flip Side attracted trouble; there was an attempt to ban funding for it in 2005 due to alleged "progressive bias": see http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/06/06/lukianoff

    However, it is very odd to require a group to have an "administrative" home in order to get funding, and it is troubling if the newspaper has been required to print disclaimers of any kind. There's nothing more useless and stupid than a disclaimer; we should always believe that the views expressed an individual represent that person's views, and not those of any institution.

    Disclaimer: the views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Higher Education's editors, writers, advertisers, or janitors.

  • Posted by Pamela on February 6, 2009 at 10:10am EST
  • As Voltaire once said, "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend with my life your right to say it." I find the practice of censorship by a university English department to be particularily humorless. While the cited article was perhaps not well written, the publication "The Flip Side" seems to be an appropriate venue for it.

  • free speech
  • Posted by nota bene on February 6, 2009 at 10:40am EST
  • No one is telling the student he *can't* say such things; he is welcome to post them on his MySpace site, but I respect the English department for refusing to implicitly condone them. The withdrawal of an administrative home and funding derived from student fees does not constitute censorship--the paper is welcome to print whatever it wishes on its own dime.

    All of the quotations regarding free speech invoked above originally referred to the right to criticize institutions or authorities believed to be ethically or morally wrong. There's a big difference between "The government (or church) is corrupt" and "I would fuck you if you were unconscious."

  • Sexual Depravity
  • Posted by Dr. Barbara Kernan on February 6, 2009 at 10:45am EST
  • If one were to substitute "lynch" for "fuck" and "Negro" for "woman" would we still be debating this issue? What is the difference between Hate speech and Free speech? Gender equity is truly "the longest revolution."

  • free speech
  • Posted by pete , professor of biology at north country community college on February 6, 2009 at 10:45am EST
  • Here's another apposite quotation: "A function of free speech is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces...unrest...or even stirs people to anger." Justice William O. Douglas

  • Posted by kgotthardt on February 6, 2009 at 12:50pm EST
  • 1. This makes the writer, the editors and the school look like a bunch of jerks.

    2. Promoting "fucking" someone only if s/he is unconscious is promoting rape.

  • Barbara, the difference is obvious
  • Posted by Kevin on February 6, 2009 at 12:50pm EST
  • Barbara,

    The difference is obvious. "Lynching" a person kills them. "Fucking" someone often involves orgasms -- sometimes by both the fucker and the fuckee.

    Is the article tasteless? Absolutely -- but it is in NO way reasonable to conflate killing someone with having sex with them.

  • Government-Funded Publications
  • Posted by Mike , Instructor at A Community College in the Pacific Northwest on February 6, 2009 at 12:55pm EST
  • I've taught journalism, advised student newspapers, and worked as executive editor for a government-funded publication ... and have long thought that decisions or even threats to withdraw funding were violations of First Amendment rights.

    It is common for advisors to be fired for their students' work. Frankly, the better-taught those students are, the more likely the advisors are to be fired. Government quite naturally finds it convenient to reduce or pull funding on occasion, regardless of the risk of federal lawsuits. It's an ugly thing.

    That said, I wonder where we got the idea there is any obligation for government to fund the press, offensive or not, learning experience or not, in the name of freedom or control? If student journalists were serious, why would they even accept such funding? How can readers take seriously any student publication that does accept such funding? What possible learning experience stems from public subsidy of something that is meant to be and thrives only when it is independent?

  • Posted by Laura(southernxyl) on February 6, 2009 at 1:05pm EST
  • Dr. Kernon nails it.

    And further, imagine that those word substitutions were made and that black students were forced to fund that publication through their student fees.

  • When will this tempest in a teapot end?
  • Posted by David Jones , Associate Professor at UW - Eau Claire on February 6, 2009 at 1:05pm EST
  • As a member of the English Department in question that voted unanimously not to sponsor this paper, I raised the point in discussion that the article on "Sexual Depravity" (and indeed, most of the content of the paper) is not thoughtful enough to merit professional attention. I favored a short statement because there are many more significant matters that require our time, attention, and support.

    There is no threat to constitutional rights implied by the English Department's withdrawal of support for the Flip Side - to suggest that this is a constitutional matter is the height of self-rightenousness gone wild. Those who want to write and publish (or sponsor) the kinds of juvenile nonsense represented in this article are still safe to do so, and I'm sure they will. Carry on!

  • Yeah, sure
  • Posted by Past Student Editor on February 6, 2009 at 1:20pm EST
  • When a newspaper columnist suggests he'd enjoy dragging an African-American tied to the back of a truck a mile or two down the road, I'm sure people will notice. Hey, it won't kill anyone, just violate their basic rights. In the meantime, we can take some consolation in knowing that this columnist's irresponsible and cavalier attitudes are now publicly and permanently tied to HIM. Good luck getting a job, dude. Or for that matter, a date that doesn't rely on Roofies.

  • Voltaire...
  • Posted by K.S.H. on February 6, 2009 at 1:45pm EST
  • never said he'd defend the subsidization of what you say, nor did he guarantee an audience for your speech.

  • It's not about censorship
  • Posted by Jack Bushnell , English Department Chair at UW-Eau Claire on February 6, 2009 at 2:00pm EST
  • While I am characterized in the article as having not responded to requests from Inside Higher Ed, the fact is I tried to call them many times yesterday and received only busy signals. I really would have preferred to talk with the reporter, rather than use email, and I had no idea the story was about to be published. But that's blood under the bridge, and I can't retroactively write all the gaps in the original article. I can, however, respond here to some pretty uniformed, naive comments from the Flip Side's new advisor and one of its writers. I'm happy my colleague Bob Nowlan was able to contribute to the article, but it still ends up being very lop-sided.

    Both Syverson and Adams want to make this a censorship issue. It never was. As I told a Flip Side reporter at length last November (interestingly not mentioned by either Syverson or Adams in this article), no one was shutting down the Flip Side. No one was censoring anybody. No one was threatening free speech. All the English Department was saying was that we weren't going to be the Flip Side’s home anymore. In a department and in a discipline (English Studies) that is built in large part on rigorous textual analysis and evaluation, we no longer wanted to sponsor what has become a magazine that prides itself on having no standards, ethical, intellectual, artistic, or otherwise.

    We were primarily concerned with responsible use of free speech as well as the Flip Side’s awareness of itself as a member of a community. Writing doesn’t exist in a vacuum, despite what Syverson and Adams may think; neither do the ideas that charge it. Our sense was that the Flip Side didn’t understand the delicate balance of free expression and responsibility. Judging by Syverson's and Adams' comments in the article, they still don't understand.

    Unfortunately, the students working on the Flip Side have (as Bob Nowlan explains) over time largely refused to be advised, to be urged toward standing for something, as opposed to standing for everything (which is the same thing as standing for nothing). I believe the Flip Side thinks its “anything goes” policy is courageous; in reality, it’s quite the opposite. To embrace “no standards” as a policy is to absolve the publication of any responsibility for anything. The editors or compilers or facilitators (or however the staff defines themselves) do none of the hard work of making decisions, of evaluating writing, of deciding what goes in and what is left out, of having a substantial philosophy of any sort. In effect, the Flip Side is a vanity press, publishing anything and everything. Vanity presses are not much respected, because they exist solely to stroke the egos of the writers who publish with them (hence their name). If this is the Flip Side’s implicit mission, then it has been scooped for some time by the biggest vanity press in the world: the internet. If you don't care about standards, there are countless places to publish, and no printing costs. Cyberspace is full of them. Indeed, I know some of the Flip Side writers already offer their thoughts online. I expect they’ll continue to exercise their free speech in just this way in the future, with or without the UW-Eau English Department's sponsorship. They may even continue to grow as young writers in the process.

    The fact is, it's naive or disingenuous or both for Syverson and Adams or anyone to believe that standards (not the same thing as censorship) are somehow a restriction on a writer’s artistic and creative integrity. It’s only because of standards that we have any idea what constitutes “art” or “creativity” or valuable ideas to begin with. It’s possible, for example, for rape to figure prominently in a work of art—literature, painting, and sculpture are full of such representations. But all within the context of the artist’s attempt to help us see the world in a new light, to come face to face with something we’ve never contemplated before or at least not in that particular way.

    The extended rape joke in last spring’s Flip Side "Sexual Depravity" piece didn’t come close to accomplishing this. The ideas were threadbare, deadeningly familiar. The writing was flat-footed; if it meant to be irony, it failed badly. Indeed, there were a large number of people on campus who found the “punch line” threatening, glib, supportive of violence against women. A real editorial staff might have suggested revisions to help a serious writer refine his craft and hopefully accomplish what he had set out to do. A real editor might have said, “Try again.” Student editors at our campus newspaper, The Spectator, have to make these kinds of tough calls. Same goes for the editors of our campus arts magazine, NOTA. But there was no one at the Flip Side to make suggestions to this particular student writer. Without standards, after all, there’s nothing to base a suggestion on.

    As I told the Flip Side reporter last fall, everybody who writes for the Flip Side is free to keep writing and keep putting their stuff out there. Indeed, the publication itself is free to keep publishing. But not with our sponsorship. That’s not censorship. It's the department's admission that it had finally grown weary of the Flip Side’s refusal to stand for something more courageous than “anything goes.” Last spring’s controversy simply put the period on the end of the sentence.

    As it turns out, the publication found itself a new home and a new advisor. I only hope they'll all consider developing true editorial standards as they move forward. The Flip Side, as an alternative publication, still has the chance to become a truly alternative newspaper or magazine on campus, with provocative, thoughtful ideas and opinions. I'd love to see them reach their potential.

  • Not that simple, Ken...
  • Posted by Beth on February 6, 2009 at 2:15pm EST
  • I am a card-carrying ACLU member and a firm believer in free speech. However, free speech is not entirely what is at issue here. Flip Side is not a privately funded publication, but is instead funded by the university. The staff CAN print and say what they wish on their own dime (or $400 in ad revenues), but the university and advising department are well within their rights to put some conditions on that considering it is paid by public student dollars. So if the students decided to start printing a nudie magazine, it would be OK to do so with your child's tuition dollars? Give me a break!

  • control?
  • Posted by DFS on February 6, 2009 at 5:10pm EST
  • Once again, a university is just too lazy to even look at what one of its funded projects has done.

    All in the spirit of academic freedom, no doubt.

    What a bunch of idiots. The administration should resign in protest.

  • Professional Judgment is not Censorship
  • Posted by Dennis G. Jerz , Associate Professor of English -- New Media Journalism at Seton Hill University on February 6, 2009 at 5:55pm EST
  • Prof. Syverson claims that the phrase "responsible use of free speech" actually means "You're going to say what I agree with," implying that the Eau Claire English department censored "The Flip Side" by withdrawing its endorsement.

    Let's imagine that some eager undergraduates announce an edgy, new, rough-and-tumble publication devoted to geology. Imagine that, for several years, it proudly publishes everything from Vernian hollow-earth conspiracy fantasies to geocentric Creationist sermons, celebrating them all as "science," even as the contributors frequently parade their ignorance of and contempt for scientific principles.

    Now imagine that Prof. Syverson and his colleagues in the geology department decide this publication falls so far short of its professional standards that its members no longer wish to associate themselves with it. Does this judgment suppress anyone's First Amendment rights?
    When I was on the Eau-Claire English faculty (1998-2003), sponsoring a student group was one of many possible ways to fulfill the "service" requirement of our contracts. From what I have seen of "The Flip Side," I can imagine why every single English professor might want to fill in the "service" column with something other than voluntary association with this particular publication.

    "The Flip Side" failed to earn the patronage of every member of a department with explicit training in the evaluation of written texts. But their professional judgment of "The Flip Side" is not censorship.

    It's a real stretch to latch onto this issue in order to defend the First Amendment. We cheapen the Bill of Rights if we treat it as a magic power-up pill that shields us from social responsibility.

  • Posted by Leonard adame on February 7, 2009 at 9:50am EST
  • Yelling fire in a crowded public space is I believe illegal. So why a clearly confused and disturbed young man get away with advocating raping an unconscious woman? Would that not be detrimental to the woman? Wouldn't that encourage other disturbed people who are confused about sexuality to think it proper to use people for self-gratification?

    It seems to me that at least a writer should try to explain his or her views on almost anything with the idea of illuminating others, not publically masterbating. And it also seems to me that editors who allow this young man to take advantage of his position are people whose sensibilities are severly immature.

    What this young man said has no value except to himself. Unfortunately, there are others who will take what he said about sex and women as license to confirm and do what they want to women. That is truely sad.

    The young author, because of his views, will also exhibit his predatory behavior in all aspects of his life, not just sexually. His is a distorted world, and yes, as he admits (but only to whimsically, he thinks, justify his views)he is narcissistic. But he's also dangerous. He needs psychiatric help at least, and soon probably a jail term.

  • Posted by Jake Everett , Didn't anyone think to ask the author anything? at USMC on February 7, 2009 at 11:55am EST
  • It seems odd to me that no one interviewed the author. In both the articles I've read about this subject, there were no quotes from the author.

    It's strange that none of the "journalists" covering this story thought to interview him. I wonder what he would think about this?

    He might want to tell his detractors that they are sorely mistaken about the purpose of his story. Maybe he would say that the article wasn't an "extended rape joke," but simply an article designed to make people talk. Sure, maybe he copied and pasted his article from a blog, but so what? I mean, the FlipSide isn't the Spectator or NOTA. And I'll bet they're proud of that. I would be.

    Perhaps the author would say that an article's merit is based not on its content, but its ability to encourage thought and debate. Maybe he would mention something about the fact that just because one doesn't find something funny doesn't mean it's not a joke. If I were to say "Mary was only a virgin if you don't count anal," there would be a lot of people who were offended. There would also be a lot of people that laughed. You know how I know this? Because tshirthell.com sold shirts that said that for years. And they made millions. They made a lot of enemies, too, but that's the beauty of free speech.

    Finally, the author might mention that he made himself available to any persons that disagreed with the views expressed in his article during the protest of the article being published. Also, he would say that he made his email, telephone number, and myspace and facebook address available for anyone that wished to debate about the article with him.

    Unfortunately, no one bothered to ask the author.

    So he had to come here and tell you himself.

    I'm Jake Everett, and I wrote "Sexual Depravity." Sure,the article came about from being lazy, but I'm not displeased with the results. The article I wrote caused more conversation and debate that anything else on the UW-EC campus ever has. So am I proud of my work? Damn right I am. No, I don't think it was well written, no I don't think it was even close to being even good...but writing isn't about the author. It's about the audience. It's about making your readers FEEL something. And I did that.

    As for the editor that said he wouldn't hire me: That's fine. I received $1,400 to go to college (that's what I got to bank...I didn't pay tuition) and that's why I went. Yes, I'd love to be a writer...but not a journalist. They're not writers. They're reporters, and being a reporter would suck.

    Well, if you got this far, then thank you.

    JE

    P.S. If you want to talk shit, bitch, complain, cry, or congratulate me...you're welcome to at everett.jake@gmail.com or 619.607.2920

  • Just a point
  • Posted by Kristoffer Martin , Flipside writer's opinion on February 7, 2009 at 2:35pm EST
  • Its not a woman's depravity its a man's depravity being expressed in the article that was written.Its apparant that even professional writers aren't catching this when they're printing their articles in response to the Flip Side and the article Sexual Depravity.

    The whole point of the Flip Side's efforts is to assure the freedom the students are expected to use. To open dialogues that otherwise would be sequestered away as socially unacceptable. How can we learn if we are told what to think and how to express that thought?

  • Posted by Your name here. on February 7, 2009 at 2:35pm EST
  • The chair of the UWEC English Department tells us the Department was "primarily concerned with responsible use of free speech." But that is only half of what he said at the time, to wit:

    "In the interests of fostering the responsible use of free speech and the mutually respectful community envisioned by the University’s Centennial Plan, the English Department has voted unanimously to sever all ties with The Flip Side."

    This is consistent with the minutes from the Department's meeting at which the vote was taken, which state that the person making the motion to sever ties with The Flip Side gave the following reasoning for her motion: "The FlipSide directly opposes our Strategic Plan's goal of creating a supportive, non-hostile environment."

    So the goal wasn't really to foster "responsible free speech" (an oxymoron?), rather it was to foster "speech that complies with the Centennial Plan" (i.e., is innocuous).

    I suppose that goal is a legitimate one for the Department to seek. But it - of all academic departments - should not try to cover up its true intentions with doublespeak about promoting free speech.

  • Leonard adame...
  • Posted by Jake Everett on February 7, 2009 at 4:40pm EST
  • Hi Leonard, I'm the "dangerous" young man that wrote the article.

    Yelling "fire" in public areas is illegal because it endangers others. Writing an offensive article endangers no one. As for "[encouraging] other disturbed people ... to use people for self-gratification"...that's just ridiculous. I suppose you think that since I made a rape joke, more people are going to be raped because of it. Do you imagine budding rapists sitting in their apartments waiting for the right trigger to set them off? If someone is going to rape a woman, then they're going to do it regardless of what they read in a magazine, see on the TV, or play in a video game. I'm flattered that you think I have that much influence over others, though.

    "The young author, because of his views, will also exhibit his predatory behavior in all aspects of his life, not just sexually. His is a distorted world, and yes, as he admits (but only to whimsically, he thinks, justify his views)he is narcissistic. But he’s also dangerous. He needs psychiatric help at least, and soon probably a jail term."

    ...I'm sorry, do we know each other? You certainly seem to think that you know me. I wouldn't presume to make a psychological profile of an author based on one article he wrote, but apparently you would.

    You think that everything I wrote in that article is completely true, don't you? Do you really think I would write any of that about myself if I was like that? Wouldn't be very good for evidence like that to turn up in a rape trial, would it? Fortunately for me, I'm not like that. I'm actually a very pleasant person.

    Enough of this, time for me to get back to torturing small animals and tending to my harem of underage girls.

    ...that was a joke. Tasteless? Of course. I happen to enjoy tasteless jokes. Harmless? Of course. You may not think so, but it makes it no less true. Offensive? Well, that depends on your idea of offensive. It doesn't offend me, and it wouldn't offend my friends. The same goes for whether or not it's funny. I think it is, maybe you don't.

    Don't presume to understand someone that you've never met, Mr. Adame...it puts you in danger of looking like a pompous fool.

  • Posted by Jeff Sharp on February 7, 2009 at 4:40pm EST
  • I noticed that 'your name here' neglects the fact that the chair of the English Department did, in his post here, address exactly what 'your name here' claims he did not; 'your name here' engages in selective quoting by ignoring "awareness of itself as a member of a community" as part of the reason given by the chair in the department's initial official public reason and statement of why it was severing ties. And that's exactly the point--the FlipSide acts as if it is not part of a community, and what it does affects no one, and it bears no responsibility for anything it does. In fact, those involved seem to want to be treated like children where others bear all responsibility for them, and give them unconditional, guaranteed support no matter what they do. I thought this was supposed to be a _college_ publication put out by _adult_ age college students? And of course there are all kinds of ways people can call attention to one's self--in re: the author's post here--(children are great at that) but does that mean that everyone must support, applaud, and endorse these? Somewhere I got the idea that the FlipSide considered itself, or maybe not for a long time (I could be altogether wrong here), an 'alternative' publication; if they do so in fact they insult the long history of what that has in fact meant at the college level--students taking strong positions struggling and fighting for social and political change, for which they were courageously willing to pay the price of representing and advancing, and in fact quite often did. 'Alternative' meant owning your statements, positions, arguments, and so on--and being ready, able, and willing to be fully and entirely accountable for them.

  • My excuse is that I am not an English professor.
  • Posted by Your name here. on February 7, 2009 at 5:20pm EST
  • Just to be clear (since Mr. Sharp missed my point):

    I am NOT saying that the English Department cannot choose to stop supporting a publication that it believes lacks “awareness of itself as a member of a community” (whatever that means). I AM saying that the Department should not say that is it doing so to "foster" "free" speech.

    What I object to is the abuse of the English language to say that you are doing just the opposite of what you are actually doing. I am particularly concerned when it is a group of English professors that are engaging in such behavior.

  • Reason to be Happy
  • Posted by Jeff Sharp on February 7, 2009 at 9:05pm EST
  • Mr. Everett's most recent post indicates that The FlipSide and he should be happy that they are no longer associated with the English Department. He offers a clear, forthright articulation of how he understands language, and discourse (maintaining no material weight and no effective material consequences), which of course is the opposite of that the English Department maintains--which we can see here all the way back to Nowlan's comments in the original article (maintaining a material weight, and exerting material consequences). Why then did this ever get raised as a matter of 'censorship' instead of a fundamental philosophical difference? As was indicated early on, why shouldn't the FlipSide seek to align themselves with a sponsor that supports their understanding of what words mean and do, rather than with one that maintains an opposing conception? I think they should be as thrilled as it strikes me the English dept. is relieved. Hopefully, for the FlipSide, Syverson and University Centers fits them much better.

  • Once again
  • Posted by Jeff Sharp on February 7, 2009 at 9:05pm EST
  • 'Your name here' once again demonstrates a failure to be able to read other than in a highly selective way. From what the chair has posted here 'foster _responsible_ use of free speech' is what he cites as _part_ of the reason for the department's action. Yes, the courts in the US have repeatedly again and again interpreted the first amendment of the US Constitution as NOT absolute, and never as intended as such; 'responsible use of free speech' 'as part of a community' is entirely in line with the overwhelmingly predominant way the 1st Amendment of the Constitution has been interpreted, from the framers onward. It couldn't be clearer to me that the chair of that department indicated in a completely straightforward way that it considers itself part of a community with a sense of social responsibility and that it is accountable for its speech and actions. Unlike the FlipSide that seems to think it is not accountable for any of its speech or actions and exists effectively outside of a community. It demands people who disagree with what it stands for, as well as who do not write, edit, publish, or distribute anything in it give their sponsorship to it, no matter what. It represents a colossal sense of childish entitlement--we have some opinions, therefore you must enable and support our publication, regardless of whether you agree with or support any of them, and regardless of whether you have any influence or impact over them. Why should the FlipSide be the only group of students whose demand to have their loose opinions printed be supported? Why not ask the English Department to sponsor, and provide material support, to enable publication of every single opinion any student, or coterie of students, wanted to see in print? Vanity press indeed. Also, I thought that Wisconsin, like most states, was facing as huge budget crisis--with substantial cutbacks coming, across the board, to positions, programs, and services, as well as higher tuition and fee costs, and lower financial aid. Why should the FlipSide be the only one entity on that campus that doesn't have to justify its continued receipt of money to sustain its operations? If UWEC is like most places, that kind of justification is being mandated across the board. And a publication whose 'mission' is 'we publish everything submitted to us' because 'we have no position of our own' and 'we accept no responsibility for the implications and consequences of anything we publish' would seem to be ripe for cutting back; if they can't make a stronger justification for receiving money than that, they're likely to fend poorly in seeking to retain and sustain funding.

  • A Little Background
  • Posted by Bob Nowlan on February 8, 2009 at 6:35am EST
  • Since an excerpt from my comment to the writer of this story appears in the story, I thought I'd share a little further background that did not make the story. The FlipSide originated when I discussed with a group of students the usefulness of starting an alternative _progressive_ publication on the UWEC campus, much like ones with which I had plenty of experience as an editor when I was a student. When it seemed like a small group of students was so interested I was quite happy to be their advisor. For awhile it seemed like the FlipSide might become that kind of publication. But only for a short while. It then moved in another direction, one that had little to do with anything I was interested in. Nevertheless, I wrote and lobbied on behalf of obtaining student fee funding of the paper, and worked on arranging for an administration home in our department, at least temporarily, to get the paper started. I did that at a time when I no longer found much of anything published in the paper of any interest, let alone agreed with any of it (in fact I agreed with nothing printed in it for most of the last two of the three years I served as official faculty advisor). And few in our department ever thought much of it either, at least not after its initial brief, fledgling progressive phase, but we wanted to be nice and try to do it a favor to help get it going. After three years I decided enough is enough; it is foolish to continue to advise a paper I have no interest in, find entirely unappealing (and extremely low quality at that), plus hardly ever read. So I submitted my resignation as faculty advisor, and our then chair, Marty Wood, stepped up for a year, when no one else in the English Department was interested, and despite the fact that Marty himself had long thought little of the paper and had been also highly critical of it. After that year, Traci Thomas-Card and Lindsay Heiser agreed the following year to serve as faculty advisors, and Traci persisted as long as she could despite the fact that she has a long-time strong involvement, interest, and connection with feminist issues, and issues of gender equality and action versus sexual violence (issues that the FlipSide has had a problem with from almost the beginning of its publication history). Lindsay Heiser stayed on through this year up until the Department severed its ties with the paper even though she too testified that she found the staff difficult to work with and the paper unappealing as a site for her involvement, when she also recommended that we cut ties with it (all four past and then present faculty advisors supported cutting ties). In fact, at that point we pretty much had to cut ties as no one in the Department had much if any interest in the FlipSide or any sense of alignment with what it was about (they couldn't possibly have found a willing advisor in the English Department!). I actually think the English Department was incredibly generous in supporting a paper for nearly six years that few if any people in the Department had much respect for or interest in, from almost the beginning. And throughout that time the students were always entirely in charge of everything published, as well as of the publication philosophy they followed. We had absolutely no power, or interest, in telling the students what they could or could not print, or what they must or must not maintain as their publication philosophy. But we did gently yet persistently keep letting editors know that the paper's sense of what it was about, and what its standards were, ran directly contrary to fundamental conceptions and practices prevailing across the disciplines which we represent in English. It is really surprising to me that they would have wanted to continue to work with the English Department at all. Really, we all think it is better for the FlipSide to have an advisor and sponsor elsewhere; it's just senseless from their perspective to even want to be aligned with us. And, finally, again, our serving as their Department 'home' was a reluctant favor we agreed to do for them, that few in the English Department really ever were comfortable with; in fact, if we had voted on this as a whole Department when it first came up it surely would have been defeated. So, in sum, the English Department was extremely generous to and patient with the FlipSide. I actually really cannot imagine any other UWEC Department being the same--including Geology. Good luck with your new sponsor and advisor. Be glad it's with people who actually maintain some kind of respect for, agreement with, and interest in what you do.

  • Posted by Sara Adams on February 8, 2009 at 6:35am EST
  • This is a censorship issue for reasons not mentioned in the article. After the Engl department removed sponsorship other departments were told by an administrator not to affiliate with the magazine. Also, when the editors of the magazine read the finance bylaws we found they did not require an affiliation at all. When rules are made up to prevent a magazine from obtaining funding, it does become a First Amendment issue.

    The First Amendment obviously doesn't guarantee funding, but at a public university I have to pay for many things I don't agree with it, including conservative professors, and sports teams I could care less about. The Supreme Court's solution to this problem is viewpoint neutrality when it comes to student organiztions (Board of Regents v. Southworth).

    I find it astonishing that so many suggest that allowing students to express and articulate opinions is not worthwhile. If you want to see for yourself whether or not The Flip Side prints worthwhile content, I urge you to check it out at this link, hopefully it works:

    http://apps.facebook.com/slide_q/show/4187

    If not, feel free to email me and I would be happy to email you the file of our last issue. adamssa@uwec.edu

  • Posted by Your name here. on February 8, 2009 at 11:20am EST
  • I thank Dr. Nowlan for his run-on paragraph providing background regarding the English Department's decision to sever its ties with The Flip Side. I particularly appreciate the fact that he did not try to insult his readers' intelligence by suggesting that the decision had anything to do with promoting "free" (as opposed to "responsible") speech. I just wish the Department had been equally forthcoming when announcing its decision, and its chair had been equally forthcoming when posting to this article.

  • Actually I entirely agree with Jack Bushnell
  • Posted by Bob Nowlan on February 8, 2009 at 1:05pm EST
  • And I see no contradiction between what he has posted here, and what I have. But, enough--as at least one other commentator has indicated, 'your name here' is a highly selective mis-reader, so there's no getting through to him or her. And I suggest that this writer's mis-use of 'run-on' only confirms other people's posted fears that the FlipSide has a lot of trouble with understanding how language works (evidently including editing as well). But that's it for me; the FlipSide is not important to me, and long hasn't been, so I myself can't imagine any use spending any more time engaging with any discussion of or debate over it. These kind of on-line discussions can drag on and on with no one adding anything new very quickly. I've never had much patience for that--let alone the time. So even if friends or colleagues tell me about further developments along this discussion thread I'm not interested. Good luck to the FlipSide with its new advisor and sponsor. I'm sure you've got enough to do in putting together your paper not to become obsessed with this past.

  • Too Late to Be Convincing
  • Posted by Jeff Sharp on February 9, 2009 at 4:25am EST
  • Sara Adams wants readers to believe that this is still a censorship issue because some administrator supposedly warned other departments against affiliating with The FlipSide after the English Dept. dropped doing so. But this could hardly be 'censorship' based on 'viewpoint'--in violation of 'viewpoint neutrality'--as the FlipSide has no viewpoint, never has, and it is and has been very proud not to. Most likely, if that happened (and the FlipSide hardly seems a credible source for anything as they are, after all, not journalists, again proudly not, but simply opinionators) it would be to warn other departments of how draining involvement with the FlipSide would be, and how ultimately embarrassing it would be, as sooner or later the FlipSide's lack of interest in any kind of standards, or any degree of responsibility, would clash with what that Department maintained, professed, firmly believed in and committed itself to (and might even get them into problems with their professional affiliations and accreditations). Adams also purports to be astonished at lack of enthusiasm over materially supporting the printing of students' mere 'opinions'---perhaps this lack of enthusiasm is because these days students can easily print their 'mere opinions' all over the web, and because one of the first lessons of freshman English composition just about everywhere is to be able to distinguish asserting an opinion from making an argument. Why should anyone working at a university be excited that students are showing themselves capable of reaching a pre-collegiate level of articulation (one that many high school students and papers easily and frequently surpass)? And it's too late to be convincing now in citing the most recent FS issue, as, from my own checking, I've found out that the FlipSide has been the subject of heated controversy for over a year now--and subject to a lot of pressure to improve its quality--so, if anything, the travails the paper has gone through have contributed toward making it better than it was. But as long as it remains committed to the same core values--we stand for nothing, we print everything, and we take no responsibility for anything we do--then it can very quickly degenerate.

  • To set the record straight.
  • Posted by Your name here. on February 9, 2009 at 4:25am EST
  • Dr. Nowlan is in error to the extent he believes that I am a writer for, editor of, or in any other way responsible for the content of The Flip Side. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation#Observer-expectancy_effect ) Whatever be my faults, they should not be used to confirm anyone's fears about that publication.

  • Posted by Leonard Adame on February 9, 2009 at 7:05pm EST
  • The author now claims it was all a joke. Please. How many times has someone advocating, and in some cases committing, violence in one way or another claimed it was harmless fun, just a joke, a lark, etc.

    This young man rationalizes quite well. But he protests too much. He should simply say he made a bad mistake and apologize, ala A-Rod.

    Joke or not, his comments reveal a negative attitude toward women.

    Unbelievably, he thinks comments don't hurt anyone--as in someone yelling fire in a crowded theater. But his comments do hurt women. He reveals an attitude that too many men have: that they can do what they want to women, including making dehumanizing jokes at their expense.

    Immaturity is one thing, but this young man is also severely sexist. His own comments reveal that and much more. There's no need to personally know him. He's made his feelings known, disturbed as they are.

    In most cases I don't like censorship. But since there are NO redeemiing qualities to this young man's writings, and since they can inspire others to do the same (there's an entire history of things in the media that have encouraged people to do terribly negative things), his views should have not been published. What would have been the loss?

    Hate speech is another element that should be censored since it too has nothing that can be seen as enlightening or further helping people to improve in one way or another.

    This young man is full of prejudices, including his being anti-reporter because being a reporter "sucks." Apparently he thinks himself the next Nobel winner.

    Simply put, the young man is immature, narcissistic, mysoginistic, and well on his way to living a rationalized version of life that clearly states he can do and think as he wishes no matter who gets hurt.

    Quite sad.

  • Posted by Zach Schultz , Provoking on February 18, 2009 at 5:35am EST
  • I've really enjoyed reading the differing positions on this matter. I've submitted a couple of articles to the Flip Side a couple of times now. I understand and respect the Flip Side's mission to publish and give voice to the minds of students at UWEC. I understand and respect the explanation given by Dr. Bushnell and Dr. Nowlan. Why can't it be that the English Department would rather have a more focused student publication than the Flip Side. So absit invidia, folks! Here it seems as though the English department has moved on; the rest should too.