The Chronicle has recently come under fire for deciding not to print a political organization's advertisement in its submitted form. The group claimed that our decision infringed upon their First Amendment right to free expression and therefore constituted censorship.
A demand that The Chronicle print their advertisement without question was, essentially, a request that the newspaper forfeit its First Amendment freedoms. And the charges of censorship, levied by Students for Choice and the National Abortion Rights Action League of North Carolina, are unfounded.
As an independent newspaper, The Chronicle has the right to determine what it will and will not print on a daily basis. The newspaper's printed advertising policy clearly states that, "The Chronicle reserves the right to reject or cancel any advertisement/insert for any reason." Although we vigorously support any individual's or organization's right to publish their opinion and distribute that information to the community, we cannot and will not concede that anyone has an inherent right to print that material in The Chronicle.
Just as we defend anyone's right to express themselves freely, we must defend our decision-making freedom. We cannot compromise the discretion we reserve in selecting the material that we publish.
The decision to modify the advertisement submitted by Students for Choice was based upon a practice, established last year, that advised the newspaper not to publish editorial opinions in advertisements relating to highly controversial and sensitive issues. The impetus for that practice stemmed from the newspaper's desire to encourage such debate to play itself out on the editorial pages of the newspaper, rather than in advertisements.
The decision to edit the advertisement was not based on any political agenda of The Chronicle staff. An advertisement submitted by a pro-life group, for example, was rejected last year based on the same principle.
Such practices are under continual review because The Chronicle is a student-run newspaper managed by a different staff-elected editor each year. As president of the Duke Student Publishing Company, the editor maintains responsibility for all decisions relating to any facet of publication. As a result, there will be natural shifts in those practices with each new administration. Although this may not be the ideal, it is the inevitable nature of a college organization.
The advertisement Students for Choice submitted to The Chronicle on Sept. 12 was the first advertisement this year to come into question. On a case-by-case basis, the editor makes the ultimate decision as to whether any advertisement containing strong editorial content should be published after discussing it with the advertising staff and the general manager.
Because of the case-specific nature of our evaluations, The Chronicle cannot delineate any specific guidelines for such decisions. There is no one set of guidelines that could possibly account for the unlimited range of materials presented to our newspaper by advertisers. To define boundaries with respect to such advertisements would be both impractical and unwise.
Furthermore, The Chronicle would compromise its autonomy by making a futile attempt to create a specific policy by which to accept or reject every advertisement it receives.
Autonomy is absolutely crucial to the functioning of any newspaper, just as the right to make autonomous decisions is essential to the operation of any independent organization. We cannot permit anyone outside of this newspaper to decide what will be published on The Chronicle's pages because the newspaper must retain some responsibility for the information that it publishes. If we do not take responsibility for what goes in our newspaper, no one will-which could result in the publishing of material undeniably offensive to our readers.
It's our job to cut it before you have to see it.
The Chronicle has been presented with a double-edged sword. Although the accusations correctly suggest that we are accountable for what we publish in this newspaper, those same accusations would have us create an inexorable policy precluding us from using our authority to make a responsible decision.
Currently, The Chronicle is reviewing its position with regard to publishing paid advertisements containing editorial opinion. As always, however, The Chronicle must continue to encourage its readers to make use of the editorial pages of the newspaper for debate and discussion purposes. These pages exist so that members of the community can submit guest columns and letters to the editor to express their opinions on controversial issues concerning the community. In this format, such highly sensitive and complex debates can be played out in a more mature, articulate manner. Such is the essence of a newspaper's mission.
Brian Harris is a Trinity senior and editor of The Chronicle.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.