1/20/2015 The Argonaut – Unpopular opinions: Why we run them http://www.uiargonaut.com/2014/11/06/running-unpopular-opinions/ 1/5 Submitted by Editorial Board on 11.06.2014 – 11:03 pm 2 Comments Home » Opinion , Our View Unpopular opinions: Why we run them Decision to publish was made consciously, with purpose The Argonaut has received dozens of responses to the opinion column, “The poison of feminism ,” by Andrew Jenson. Many were outraged by the content while others supported it and thanked Jenson for his perspective. The piece itself was largely unpopular, and some discussion has centered on The Argonaut’s decision to publish the column in the first place. It should be made clear: Jenson’s column does not represent the views of The Argonaut. His interpretation of feminism is his own, developed from his upbringing, beliefs and experiences. It was the decision of Argonaut editors to publish the piece, not because we agreed with or condoned his beliefs, but because he has the right to them. Jenson — and anyone who shares his beliefs — has the same right to the platforms afforded liberal thinkers. Jenson’s views, while unpopular among the majority of The Argonaut’s readership and most of its editors, represent the views of countless people in the U.S., many in Idaho and on the University of Idaho campus. He is The Argonaut’s one conservative voice among a sea of liberal thoughts. During his time here, our decision to publish his columns has become an annual conversation among readers. The Argonaut’s opinion section is often tagged as “liberal” and has published far more pro-feminism columns than anything else in recent history. But The Argonaut has an obligation to present views that may be different from the majority. It is the duty of a news organization to hold a mirror to society and reflect every aspect of it. It is our job to uphold the First Amendment and not stop people who may believe differently from expressing their views in the same ways and on the same platforms as anyone else. Jenson’s perspectives make people uncomfortable because they do not align with the majority. But he did not advocate violence or discrimination. He did not libel anyone. He championed an ideology that is still popular among many Americans through a broad interpretation of feminism and its purpose that some believe twisted the movement for his own devices. While offensive to many, Jenson’s column sparked a mostly civil discussion and represented the views of a significant portion of the population. The Argonaut publishes these columns because these opinions exist. It’s important to know they exist, and it would be ignorant for for any liberal thinker to assume that they don’t. The First Amendment provides an opportunity for a diversity of ideas, and — more importantly — open discourse. Home News Sports Opinion Rawr Radio Blogs Advertising Contact Student Media Legislature Search... News Sports Opinion Rawr Multimedia
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1/20/2015 The Argonaut – Unpopular opinions: Why we run them
Submitted by Editorial Board on 11.06.2014 – 11:03 pm 2 Comments
Home » Opinion, Our View
Unpopular opinions: Why we run them
Decision to publish was made consciously, with purpose
The Argonaut has received dozens of responses to the opinion column, “The poison of feminism,” by Andrew Jenson. Many were outraged by thecontent while others supported it and thanked Jenson for his perspective.
The piece itself was largely unpopular, and some discussion has centered on The Argonaut’s decision to publish the column in the first place.
It should be made clear: Jenson’s column does not represent the views of The Argonaut. His interpretation of feminism is his own, developed fromhis upbringing, beliefs and experiences.
It was the decision of Argonaut editors to publish the piece, not because we agreed with or condoned his beliefs, but because he has the right to them.Jenson — and anyone who shares his beliefs — has the same right to the platforms afforded liberal thinkers.
Jenson’s views, while unpopular among the majority of The Argonaut’s readership and most of its editors, represent the views of countless people inthe U.S., many in Idaho and on the University of Idaho campus. He is The Argonaut’s one conservative voice among a sea of liberal thoughts.During his time here, our decision to publish his columns has become an annual conversation among readers.
The Argonaut’s opinion section is often tagged as “liberal” and has published far more pro-feminism columns than anything else in recent history.
But The Argonaut has an obligation to present views that may be different from the majority. It is the duty of a news organization to hold a mirror tosociety and reflect every aspect of it. It is our job to uphold the First Amendment and not stop people who may believe differently from expressingtheir views in the same ways and on the same platforms as anyone else.
Jenson’s perspectives make people uncomfortable because they do not align with the majority. But he did not advocate violence or discrimination. Hedid not libel anyone.
He championed an ideology that is still popular among many Americans through a broad interpretation of feminism and its purpose that some believetwisted the movement for his own devices. While offensive to many, Jenson’s column sparked a mostly civil discussion and represented the views ofa significant portion of the population.
The Argonaut publishes these columns because these opinions exist. It’s important to know they exist, and it would be ignorant for for any liberalthinker to assume that they don’t.
The First Amendment provides an opportunity for a diversity of ideas, and — more importantly — open discourse.
You can use these tags:<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em><i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.
Post Comment
Refresh
Captcha *
Find us online
Argonaut — Latest Issue
Rawr — Latest Issue
Best of Moscow 2014
Recent Posts
UPDATE: Moscow shooting suspect pleads not guilty to Washington chargeRequesting reimbursementMoscow remembersOff the cuffSports briefs
Most Commented
Twice the independence—Kibbie Dome clash a battle of the conference-lessThe doctor is in — Moscow doctor becomes Palouse’s only board-certified obesity physicianInadequate increaseVandals outshoot AggiesNo kick Far(quhar) enough for Idaho senior
Most Popular
Powered by WordPress | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Valid XHTML and CSSArthemia Premium by ColorLabs & Company
1/20/2015 The Argonaut – Unpopular opinions: Why we run them
Submitted by Editorial Board on 10.16.2014 – 9:36 pm
Home » Opinion, Our View
A students’ dean
For 42 years, Pitman has served UI and its students
Homecoming Weekend is one of the most anticipated social weekends of the year — from the fireworks to the football game, Vandals near and farcome to show their pride.
This year though, Homecoming means just a little bit more, and people are coming from all over for another festivity. This weekend marks theretirement celebration of long-time Dean of Students Bruce Pitman.
With nearly 42 years of service to the University of Idaho under his belt, it’s safe to say he has touched countless lives. This is made clear by the morethan 400 people who plan to attend his retirement party and take this Homecoming Weekend as an opportunity to say “thank you.”
And though the gratitude will be overwhelming, Pitman should enjoy the spotlight and this appreciation of his service.
Pitman was a stabilizing force in a university that has experienced constant turnover and gained a reputation as an institution known as a stepping-stone to better options. It’s always been clear Pitman never thought of UI that way.
Pitman stuck with the university through thick and thin, tragedy and triumph, president after president. He’s always been in it for the long hall, andeven when given the opportunity to retire several years ago, he waited until the time felt right.
When Pitman announced his plans to retire last spring, it didn’t quite seem real. In August, he welcomed the new school year and fresh-faced first-year students, just as he had the previous four decades. He still comes into work every day and remains the guiding voice in Student Affairs.
Never did Pitman’s impending retirement feel more real than it did Thursday, when the Idaho State Board of Education approved UI’s request torename the Student Union Building. As of Jan. 4, the building will be known as the Pitman Center — the university’s retirement gift to a man whohas become a part of the school’s identity. It wouldn’t be right to let him go quietly or entirely.
He has worked in a division of university administration that is neither glorious nor highly paid. Yet he did it without complaint, and with enoughlove and dedication for the student body that few would argue he deserves anything less than a building and a well-deserved retirement vacation.
Pitman embodies what it means to be a university administrator. He never once believed the students came to school for him, but every day he cameto work for them.
If there was ever a time Pitman didn’t feel like going to work, or would have rather been doing something else, he never once showed it, and hisdedication was felt by everyone. Through student deaths, angry parents, student disciplinary issues and countless other unsavory situations, Pitman
went above and beyond to protect student rights and show he truly put them first.
Even without a building, Pitman would be remembered for decades to come as an advocate for students, a thoughtful and calming voice in times of
student tragedy, a careful mediator and a friend to many.
So, as we congratulate Pitman on his retirement and remember his decades of service, we recognize that UI would not be the place it is today without
him.
And from The Argonaut, thank you, Bruce Pitman. Thank you for your advocacy for the student voice, for answering our endless questions and
letting us write feature after feature about you and your time here. There truly are no two better words to express our gratitude for everything you’ve
done for us and for this university.
Thank you. You will be missed.
—KK
0
26Like
Tags: "Pitman Center", Bruce Pitman, Dean of Students, SUB
Leave a comment!
Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also Comments Feed via RSS.
Submitted by Editorial Board on 10.09.2014 – 10:20 pm
Home » Opinion, Our View
Fighting a losing battle
Otter should stop spending tax dollars to fight gay marriage
Same-sex couples lined up at courthouses throughout Idaho Wednesday morning to apply for marriage licenses, after a federal appeals court struckdown the state’s ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional a day earlier.
But, 20 minutes before the state was to begin granting marriage licenses the United States Supreme Court issued an emergency temporary stay at therequest of Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter, to halt the issuing of licenses to same-sex couples. Rather than photos of jubilation, the images capturedsame-sex couples embracing in tears at the news that they, yet again, were being denied the rights afforded to all other U.S. citizens.
When the Idaho federal district court overturned the ban on same-sex marriage in the spring, Otter requested a stay and pledged $1 million to fight fora continued ban on same-sex marriage in Idaho. Otter further stated he would, in fact, fight the issue all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
While Otter’s stance on the issue — that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman — is in line with a plurality of Idahoans, recent historydemonstrates Otter won’t win this battle. Instead, he is simply wasting taxpayer dollars on an issue that’s essentially already been decided.
Earlier in the week, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the 10th Circuit Federal Appeals Court to overturn bans on gay marriage in five states— effectively making the court’s stance on the issue clear while they wait for the rest of the circuit courts to make their decisions.
In the past, Otter has repeatedly denied the availability of any additional funding in the state and refused to raise state taxes to fund things likeeducation, infrastructure, Medicaid expansion and more. Yet when the sanctity of unions defined by a church is put under siege, he’s more thanwilling to find the money to fight it.
Throughout history, Idaho has been the state that comes last in everything — from education, to traffic safety, to healthcare. It’s time for Otter and therest of Idaho to accept times are changing.
No longer is it acceptable to cite church doctrine as a means to define the law. No longer is it OK to violate the 14th amendment of the U.S.Constitution — a clause that guarantees equal protections to all born and naturalized citizens of the United States.
No longer is it tolerable to spend tax dollars to deny privileges guaranteed by state-recognized unions based on sexual orientation and an outdateddefinition of marriage.
The fight for marriage equality isn’t — at the heart of the issue — about love. It’s about providing equal opportunity to anyone — regardless ofsexual orientation, gender, race or any other definable quality.
It’s time for Otter and the rest of Idaho to get with the times. They need to realize the sanctity of their marriage is at no more risk once gay couples are
allowed to wed than it was when Brittany Spears and Jason Alexander filed for divorce after 55 hours of holy matrimony.
It’s time for Idaho to stop being the asterisk at the end of the sentence when it comes to change. Idaho needs to accept a separation of church and state
and understand its place in history shouldn’t mean being stuck in the past.
— KK
0
0Like
Tags: Federal Appeals Court, Idaho, Same-sex marriage
Leave a comment!
Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also Comments Feed via RSS.