rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (10/18/84)
[Information taken from the 10/16/84 BOSTON PHOENIX article, "Hawking
Papers" by Peter Canellos, pp. 10-11, 34,36,38.]
The last 5 years has seen the rise of "independent" "conservative"
campus "newspapers" on 60 campuses nationwide, liberally [sic.]
funded by the Institute for Educational Affairs (IEA), a New Right
organization, to the tune of $1800-10,000 per paper to startup, con-
trasted with the $1000 or less that other publications receive from
tight student-activities monies. The rightwing rags also receive
valuable services FREE from the IEA and the Washington Leadership
Institute, another New Right group: reprints of national press
articles & cartoons; exclusive interviews with prominent figures;
training in legal matters (how to incorporate, nonprofit status),
fundraising, & tactics for battling school administrations.
But the truth is these publications are neither:
1) Independent: they must apply to the IEA by submitting
a detailed grant proposal, budget proposal, statement
of purpose, writing samples, evidence of faculty support.
The nonprofit IEA refuses to fund "liberal papers". The
edge the 60 rags enjoy is entirely due to IEA funds, es-
pecially considering the troubles these papers deliber-
artely create (see below); the threat of withdrawal of
IEA $$ is tantamount to monitoring & censorship, even
though once an application is granted, all the IEA does
is provide free services. Nor are the papers
2) Conservative: but rather far-right, paranoid & rabid
like much of the New Right, or what a Victorian would
call "reactionary". They wouldn't recognize a genuine
conservative even if Edmund Burke appeared to them in
a vision. And they're not
3) Newspapers, but "tabloids", whose routine use of a bat-
tery of racial, ethnic, & sexual slurs, innuendoes, and
coarse baiting tactics would make even a Wliiam Randolph
Hearst or Rupert Murdoch indignant. They inject new and
virulent life into the phrase "yellow-sheet journalism".
(Maybe some of the more offensive people on the net have
been weaned at this abbatoir of journalism?)
I'm seeking information, anecdotes, relevant law from netters who
have a knowledge of:
1) Statutary law & pending legislation regarding public
& private school funding, student activities, & poli-
tical interest groups. Are there grounds for lawsuits
against such outside, invidious, & vested funding? Is
a class action suit possible against all 60 rags at once?
2) Typical university rules & regulations impinging on these
issues.
3) Any campus tabloids; also, student & alumni campaigns against
them. Personal experiences?
To illustrate the character of this new tabloid press, here's a brief
history of the Dartmouth College (Hanover, NH) paper, the DARTMOUTH REVIEW,
the first paper funded by the IEA, in 1980, under the wing of New Right
Dartmouth professor Jeffrey Hart.
Hart secured Jack Kemp, William Rusher (publisher of NATIONAL REVIEW), &
R. Emmett Tyrrell (founder of AMERICAN SPECTATOR) for the advisory board.
The REVIEW then proceeded to:
1) Reinstate Dartmouth's banned logo, a grinning caricature of an
Indian (mere fun & games, you say, because Indians don't count?
Look at what followed:)
2) Publish "Dis ain't no jive, bro", an article written in "black
jive" criticizing minority recruitment; it "suggested that Dart-
mouth was admitting blacks who were shiftless, hostile to whites,
& unable to do college work" (Canellos in PHOENIX, p. 34)
3) Publish "Grin & Beirut" which ridiculed Dartmouth's recognition
of Jewish holidays. It "likened a religious hut erected for the
Jewish harvest holiday of Sukkoth to 'a settlement on the West
Bank of College Hall'. When anti-Semitic vandals destroyed the
Sukkah hut on the night of the day the article was published,
the college rabbi blamed the Review for inciting the destruc-
tion." (p. 34)
4) Publish an article "listing the names and describing the exper-
iences of students attending a confidential meeting of the Gay
Students Association." (p. 34) The REVIEW reporter, who posed
as a lesbian, also taperecorded parts of the meeting. Protests
(of "violation of felony wiretapping & misdemeanor privacy laws"
(p. 34)) were made to the NH attorney general's office, which
recently announced it wouldn't prosecute the reporter. The
current governor, John Sununu, on leave from the Mechanical
Engineering Dept. of Tufts University (Medford, MA), is a New
Right ideologue.
A black Dartmouth administrator was so incited by the REVIEW that he phy-
sically assaulted one of its editors, & ended losing his job.
Many of the other tabloids used the same tactics when they first began;
although some have moderated their behavior once established, often
they merely encase the same rabid views & bigotries in "pompous verbiage".
For example, the Harvard paper, the SALIENT, attacked the Law School "for
allegedly having less strenous guidelines for black professors" (p. 36).
In eastern Massachusetts, some of the other yellow sheets are:
Harvard Salient
Primary Source (Tufts)
Observer (Boston College)
For a detailed report, see Peter Cannelos' piece in this week's BOSTON
PHOENIX.
Cheers,
Ron Rizzogerber@mit-athena.ARPA (Andrew S Gerber) (10/18/84)
Well, we don't have any type of conservative newspaper here at MIT, in fact, the student paper which I am an editor of, The Tech, is the only real, regular voice on campus. (Ergo, an 'objecttivist philosphy' paper is in the process of dying from lack of membership, In Focus, put out by the InterFraternity Council, thinks that they are a newspaper but are more of a newsletter for fraternitys, and they only come out once a month, and Tech Talk, the house organ of MIT, is not a voice of the student body at all.) I don't think a conservative newspaper would do very well here, for several reasons: A) Lack of student interest B) Lack of ad revenue. (The Tech has all national and most local ads locked up. C) Objection on the part of the MIT administration to an outside sponsored newspaper on campus. And I'm glad. The Tech could use some competition, but with the way courses go here and the load on each student, sometimes I wonder how we manage to put out 24 pages twice a week (it varys according to ads -- can be as low as 4 pages or a high as 32). Andrew Gerber decvax!athena!gerber
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (10/18/84)
I agree, it all sounds pretty awful. Those damned "conservatives"
ought to be made to close up shop, or we'll lock them up!
Being a libertarian (note the small 'l', please) and a Republican
and a student of Jefferson, Paine, and Mill (even SOUNDS like a law
firm), I would like to note that:
1) no matter WHO funded them, and no matter WHAT they're saying
these newpapers have the right to publish ANYTHING THEY DAMNED
WELL PLEASE!
2) the reporterial (sp?) tactics you mention (concealed tapes
-- consider "60 Minute's" concealed cameras) have been used at
some length by liberal (statist-on-the-left) press, and I've
not heard of any trials against them...
3) Anyone on the net advocating ANY form of censorship or punishment
or harassment (a class-action suit sounds pretty close to that,
no?) should --
a) get someone to post them the hassles Tim Moroney had with
net censors, and
b) remember that, if you can do it to them, they can do it to
you.
Well, I tried to keep from flaming...
Charlie Martin
"Write in NOBODY! NOBODY could be better!"lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (10/18/84)
"I'm seeking information, anecdotes, relevant law from netters who
have a knowledge of:
3) Any campus tabloids; also, student & alumni campaigns against
them. Personal experiences?"
At MIT we have a paper called ERGO. It is in a some what different
class than the papers you mentioned. It calls itself the "Campus Voice
of Reason", and claims to be governed by the Objectivist philosophy of
Ayn Rand.
Rather than a tabloid, it is a very ugly (layout wise) paper
whose main body consists of long dry articles, with no pictures or
features to speak of.
Most people on campus consider it something of a joke ("Ego:The
campest voice of reason"), but it does have a non-trivial following
nevertheless. It is rarely offensive, rather simply stupid.
MIT students are generally too caught up in their technical work
to publish a real paper (offensive or otherwise), so we end up with pale
versions of other campus rags.
--
larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate)
UUCP: ...{ihnp4, decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk
ARPA: lkk@mit-mcorb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/19/84)
> I'm seeking information, anecdotes, relevant law from netters who > have a knowledge of: > > 1) Statutary law & pending legislation regarding public > & private school funding, student activities, & poli- > tical interest groups. Are there grounds for lawsuits > against such outside, invidious, & vested funding? Is > a class action suit possible against all 60 rags at once? > > 2) Typical university rules & regulations impinging on these > issues. > > 3) Any campus tabloids; also, student & alumni campaigns against > them. Personal experiences? > Cheers, > Ron Rizzo As much as I agree that what such papers publish is reprehensible, I have to defend their right to exist. Some people may be persuaded by such blatant appeals to bigotry but I think most people would reject it. The proper response to this New Right prejudice is to begin or support rival papers to challenge them. Such papers may not have the money from the rich that these Right-wing papers can get, but they are more likely to support themselves by contributions from those not as wealthy or as extremist. All the same this trend towards outright bigotry and nationalistic chauvinism does bother me very much. The sense that America is attaining an atmosphere like Germany in the 30's is made stronger by such blatant appeals to rascism and militarism. Tim Sevener whuxl!orb
geb@cadre.UUCP (10/21/84)
I agree that from your article it sounds like some of these journals have fascist tendencies. I haven't ever seen one of these papers, and would wonder if the examples you cited weren't one or two individual editors out of control, rather than some conspiracy. The remedy, in any case, should lie in the civil courts and not the criminal ones, or worse, new legislation. The first amendment guarantees of freedom of speech are far more precious than any damage that can be done by their abuse by any group, be it Nazi, KKK, etc. even if they make racial or relgious slurs. Once laws are in place limiting the rights of free speech, they can be used by the State against whomever they choose, and usually they end up being used against dissenters and members of minorities by governments. Nothing could be more likely to make this country fascist. I think most students can recognize these people as lunatic fringe, and the most appropriate response is saying so and loudly. If someone has been harmed directly, libel suits and other civil actions can tie up the editors in court and make things unpleasant for them. The greatest need will be to find volunteer attorneys who will help file these suits, and harmed parties who will take time to complain. G. Banks
asente@decwrl.UUCP (Paul Asente) (10/21/84)
I believe that Dartmouth College is in fact attempting to get the Dartmouth Review to stop using the name "Dartmouth." They recognize that they do have the right to publish (as much as I hate what they write, I must certainly agree with this) but are trying to stop the association with the College by use of the name. This has been going on for years and it hasn't shown any sign of being resolved. -paul asente
bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (10/23/84)
Last spring, Teresa Polenz, a Dartmouth freshman and reporter
for the feisty "Dartmouth Review", attended a meeting of the Dartmouth
Gay Students' Association with a tape recorder in her handbag. In
the entirely sober article she subsequently wrote, she mentioned
the names only of the GSA officers, which are a matter of public
record. The GSA meeting had been advertised publicly and it took
place on college property. The organization is funded by the
college, i.e., in part by Teresa Polenz's own tuition money. There
were no particular scandals at the meeting, except that heterosexuals
were referred to as "perverts."
But all hell broke loose. The college initially moved to
bring Teresa Polenz before its disciplinary committee, but backed
off when the New Hampshire attorney general - and this is a genuinely
remarkable political development - moved to prosecute her under a New
Hampshire wiretapping statute. After a four-month investigation -
the attorney general's office describes it as an "exhaustive
review" - the state has dropped the case. In point of fact, according
to Miss Polenz's attorney, Laurence Silberman, former U.S. Deputy
Attorney General, the prosecution never had a chance. The statute is
so broadly drawn that it is probably unconstitutional; its
intent was to prevent the recording of conversations among prison
inmates; and it has no application to the Polenz case. Why the state
attorney general wasted the taxpayer's money in this feckless
enterprise remains an interesting question, to be further explored.
The whole episode possesses large implications. Teresa Polenz
was challenging the symbolic legitimacy of college funding for a
gay support group. She also believed that she had every right
to attend a meeting on college property and, as a journalist, to
report on it. The Dartmouth faculty apparently disagreed,
voting overwhelmingly to condemn the "Review" in the wake of the
Polenz affair. At the heart of the matter is the issue of the status
of "gayness." The Left position appears to be that homosexuality is
just an alternative sexual style, certainly no worse than "straight"
preferences. Indeed, the homosexual, having qualified for
Victim Status, is privileged. The faculty vote reflects the ideology.
The climb-down of the New Hampshire attorney general puts the
ball back in the court of the Dartmouth administration. It is
under faculty pressure to move against Miss Polenz through its
disciplinary arm, but she does not appear to have broken any college
regulations. The faculty Left would like to throw her out of
school, but on freedom-of-the-press grounds she has the support of, for
example, the American Civil Liberties Union.
The Gay Students' Association should meet in a
private house. But that is precisely what they do not want to
do. They want secret meetings and maximum public legitimacy.
The National Review
November 2, 1984
reprinted without permission
--
Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp.
...{presby|psuvax|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnaplrap@oliven.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (10/23/84)
. >I agree that from your article it sounds like some of these >journals have fascist tendencies. I haven't ever seen >one of these papers, and would wonder if the examples >you cited weren't one or two individual editors out of >control, rather than some conspiracy. I saw a documentary last Sunday night that addressed the issues these groups (the radical right) are making a big noise about. It showed how the radical conservatives have caused censureship of school materials, the firing of teachers for including books by Hemingway and Bradbury on their reading lists, organized book burnings and more. I even saw one religious leader advocate execution of gay people. It is not an isolated case it is a whole movement. These people are telling their members that they don't have to be the majority to get their way, they just have to be the loudest and the heads of these groups are religious leaders like Jerry Falwell. >The remedy, in any case, should lie in the civil courts and not the >criminal ones, or worse, new legislation. The first amendment >guarantees of freedom of speech are far more precious than >any damage that can be done by their abuse by any group, >be it Nazi, KKK, etc. even if they make racial or relgious >slurs. Once laws are in place limiting the rights of >free speech, they can be used by the State against whomever >they choose, and usually they end up being used against >dissenters and members of minorities by governments. >Nothing could be more likely to make this country >fascist. Unfortunately, this is exactly what these groups are trying to do. They have already destroyed the effectiveness of the child abuse laws in one state not by legislation, but by peer pressure. This in spite of the fact that 8 children died due to child abuse in that state during the year that these groups campaigned against that states child abuse laws. >I think most students can recognize these people as >lunatic fringe, and the most appropriate response is >saying so and loudly. If someone has been harmed >directly, libel suits and other civil actions can >tie up the editors in court and make things unpleasant >for them. The greatest need will be to find volunteer >attorneys who will help file these suits, and >harmed parties who will take time to complain. > > G. Banks I do agree, but be careful. I read some time ago about one group that beat the system for a long time because they harassed the publishers, editors and reporters of papers and magazines that published articles accusing them of something wrong. This was a "religious" group! -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap
manis@ubc-vision.CDN (Vincent Manis) (10/24/84)
The whole business of "conservative" tabloids confuses me. One certainly has to let them print what they want, so long as they aren't advocating violence; on the other hand, they typically abuse the right of free speech. I can't really see anything legally wrong with the account of Ms. Polenz' activities (bearing in mind that the account may or may not be accurate). Indeed, the names of club officials are a matter of public record, and if the event was advertised as being open to the public, she certainly had a right to be there. The moral issues are more cloudy. Did she go to the meeting with an axe to grind? Did she report the proceedings in a contemptuous or horrified tone? Did she attempt, after taping the proceedings, to interview any of the executive of the GSA or any of the attendees? (She could, for example, have identified herself to the association president and then requestepd an interview after the meeting was over.) I believe that you have to balance the rights of a journalist with responsibilities, but then maybe I've watched too many episodes of "Lou Grant".
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (10/25/84)
[Tom Albrecht's NATIONAL REVIEW quote] There seems to be disagreement over the basic facts between the BOSTON PHOENIX & Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. 's (have I got the twit's name right?) NATIONAL REVIEW. When I started to read Tom's posting, I thought something's really amiss with the PHOENIX's reporting standards. But when I noticed the tag at the end attributing the remarks to the Buckley family's own agitprop organ, I wonder if it's worth spending time (I don't have) investigating the claims of as murky a rag as NR. Any takers (even better, Dartmouth students, alumni) out there? Trick or treat? Ron Rizzo
asente@Cascade.ARPA (10/27/84)
> Any takers > (even better, Dartmouth students, alumni) out there? > > Trick or treat? > Ron Rizzo I graduated from Dartmouth in 1979, just before the Review raised its ugly head. At that time, I can state that: 1) The proportion of students favoring a return of the Indian symbol was very small. Most of them were from the reactionary "Old Dartmouth" group: everything used to be better before they let women in, etc. etc. I used to think that the fact that Dartmouth used to have the reputation of being a bastion of raw male lust, of horny men out in the middle of the woods, was the principal cause of this reactionism. Now that similar papers are showing up more or less everywhere, I'm being forced to review that opinion. Perhaps this is what let it get a foothold at Dartmouth and thus gain legitimacy elsewhere? But I digress. The Indian symbol was pretty much a dead issue. 2) John Kemeny, the president of the college at the time, was practically idolized by the students. He only had to start out a talk with his traditional opening, "Men and Women of Dartmouth," and he would get an immediate standing ovation. At our commencement address, he altered this for the first time to "Women and Men of Dartmouth" and got, if anything, a more enthusiastic response than usual. 3) Dartmouth at the time did not have a policy of sex-blind admissions. There was a quota for women in the entering class. This was extremely unpopular among the students; during my senior year the trustees once again rejected equal access for women and there was practically a student riot. (It was finally passed the next year.) I think that taking these things into account, any claim that the Dartmouth Review is merely reflecting student opinion can easily be seen as the bald-faced lie that it is. They're not reflecting it, they're forming it. The Review's crucifixion of Kemeny as a bleeding-heart wimp that castrated the true "Dartmouth spirit" (whatever that is) is nothing less than vicious libelling of the man who pretty much single-handedly brought the college into the twentieth century. -paul asente "It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them."
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (10/30/84)
> Paul Asente: > I used to think that the fact that Dartmouth used to have the > reputation of being a bastion of raw male lust, of horny men out in the > middle of the woods, was the principal cause of this reactionism. > The Review's crucifixion of Kemeny as a > bleeding-heart wimp that castrated the true "Dartmouth spirit" > (whatever that is) is nothing less than vicious libelling of the man > who pretty much single-handedly brought the college into the twentieth > century. "Vicious libelling" depends on your viewpoint. Let's start with Eleazar Wheelock, founder and first president of Dartmouth. He wanted a school in New England where Indians could be trained in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not exactly a "bastion of raw male lust." From Wheelock's viewpoint, Kemeny probably should be shot before dawn. Even through at least 1886, Dartmouth continued as a Bible school. But by 1926, liberalism had infiltrated to the point where it was said "Dartmouth is proud of her disbelievers." The "Dartmouth Spirit" was castrated long before Kemeny arrived, but he didn't do it any good. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.
jhull@spp2.UUCP (11/06/84)
> . > > >I agree that from your article it sounds like some of these > >journals have fascist tendencies. I haven't ever seen > >one of these papers, and would wonder if the examples > >you cited weren't one or two individual editors out of > >control, rather than some conspiracy. > > I saw a documentary last Sunday night that addressed the > issues these groups (the radical right) are making a big > noise about. It showed how the radical conservatives have > caused censureship of school materials, the firing of > teachers for including books by Hemingway and Bradbury on > their reading lists, organized book burnings and more. I > even saw one religious leader advocate execution of gay > people. I realized, when I got to this article in the series, that the discussion was branching out beyond the question of the behavior of the press and into a left versus right brangle. I would request all net members to remember that television news teams are responsible to their management for producing a marketable product, not correctly informing the American public on the political and social issues of our times. I would also like to ask, how would you characterize the following behavior: grouping all people to the right (or left) of your position together. If I happen to be moderate in my beliefs and you slightly to the left, then would it be fair to group me with someone who "advocate(s) execution of gay people?" > > It is not an isolated case it is a whole movement. These > people are telling their members that they don't have to be > the majority to get their way, they just have to be the > loudest and the heads of these groups are religious leaders > like Jerry Falwell. > Without defending Jerry Falwell, I request Mr. Pease get his facts straight. Rev. Falwell does not tell his parishioners that the way to "get their way" is to make the most noise. He tells them the way to prevail is to organize at the ballot box. The current anxiety in liberal ranks is due, in part, to the fact that he is doing that very well and to great effect. > > Unfortunately, this is exactly what these groups are trying > to do. They have already destroyed the effectiveness of the > child abuse laws in one state not by legislation, but by > peer pressure. This in spite of the fact that 8 children > died due to child abuse in that state during the year that > these groups campaigned against that states child abuse > laws. > I don't know to what Mr. Pease is referring so I can hardly rebut it. However, it seems to me that one of the primary planks of the religious right is "family rights" and certainly that cannot include child abuse. Is it possible that the legislation was so written as to provide for untoward state intervention in family matters? I don't see how else to reconcile the apparrent inconsistency. > > Robert A. Pease > {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap Jeff Hull