Many people are dissatisfied with some of the decisions the Committee on Student Organizations has made recently, and they are entitled to their opinion. But let's get the facts straight. All along COSO has been making group statements, but I would like to offer the opinions of a COSO member. I do not speak for COSO, but instead as a four-year member of the organization.
I have been told by people, "You don't have a sense of humor, and COSO was out of line to act on this issue." Just as many times, I have heard, "You didn't do enough -- that publication doesn't have the right to publish again after the last issue." Well, I disagree with both of these sentiments. I am very proud of the decisions made by COSO and even prouder of the reasons behind these decisions.
Most people are familiar with what happened: an issue was printed, many people on this campus were offended, COSO was asked to take action, and The Jack-O-Lantern had to satisfy a "to-do list" before they could expect further funding. While conversations that took place behind closed doors must remain behind those closed doors (including those that took place between COSO and the Jack-O members), I would like to clear up some misconceptions about the organization that gives money to student organizations.
We have a limited budget. This is not an excuse, but a fact. Each term, we receive a number of proposals for publications, but we only have a set amount of money which we can use for this purpose. So to speak, there is a pie that gets divided up between all the publications asking for money. Last term, not one publication got what they requested, and several were extremely displeased with the size of their piece of pie. Therefore we have a responsibility to make sure that each publication is using their money properly and efficiently, because if they're not, someone else would love the excess. The system for how the money is divided was worked out in conjunction with the campus publications after complaints about the old policy.
Many people know that we sanctioned the Jack-O, but not many have looked at what we requested or examined why we did what we did. All I keep hearing is, "A withdrawal of funding based upon content amounts to censorship." But we never withdrew funding! We technically have the right to, but I'm very proud that we didn't.
We could very well have de-recognized the publication, but instead we decided we would much prefer to have it continue. They made a mistake, and they said so themselves in their apology to the campus and to us. Repeatedly, the campus read in the printed apology that the articles were not meant to hurt, and had the Jack-O known the effects of the articles in question, they would not have been printed. So how were they printed? This was the question COSO continually asked. It became evident that the problem was a lack of a review process. Editors were writing, and writers were editing. The advisor was entirely unaware of the content. Anyone involved in publications would agree that a review process is essential to a successful printed product. So rather than setting up a suspension period or a punishment (which there was plenty of campus support for -- you should have seen the stack of complaint letters that each member of COSO read), we asked them to reorganize to prevent further mistakes.
Some people hold the opinion that what they printed was not a mistake and that people have a right to print whatever it is they want. Controversy, discussion and free opinions are highly encouraged in our campus publications, and people don't have to agree with everything printed. We do, however, have a Principle of Community at this school, and when so many students cried out, something had to be done. People can print anything, but in order to receive money from the College, one must comply with certain basics outlined in the Student Handbook. Publishers who control funding for magazines, newspapers and journals reserve the right to pull content they are dissatisfied with, since they are footing the bill. COSO doesn't pull content or envision a world of agreeable, uncontroversial publications, but we do have a duty to uphold the rules of the College.
The Jack-O has separated their editorial board from their writers and did get a fine new advisor in English Professor Peter Saccio. Furthermore, they were recently granted funding. I wish them all the luck on their next issue. I hope to see this magazine, which has a very long history on this campus and a distinguished list of alumni, succeed. I do, however, warn them that regardless of COSO, the campus is watching and will scrutinize this next issue. The Jack-O and the campus need to be reminded of the purpose listed in their constitution, "To foster humor and mirth amongst the Dartmouth Community." I hope I'm still here when this happens. I'm really tired of reading about it.
