With last week's proposed guidelines for monitoring student publications, the Committee on Student Organizations is treading a fine line between censorship and responsible supervision.
As Fall term's incidents involving Uncommon Threads and the Jack-O-Lantern illustrate, student outcry often reprimands publications after they have printed offensive material.
However, these ex post facto calls for censorship are clearly not an effective means of monitoring student publications.
In order to improve the quality and integrity of College-funded publications, COSO should work with them to promote accountability and responsibility without infringing upon rights to free speech.
While COSO's proposals are a step toward holding publications to higher standards, not all of the restrictions are necessary, and some may result in more detriment than benefit.
Clearly, student publications must adhere to federal obscenity standards.
However, the proposal calling for warning labels prominently displayed on publications containing "questionable" material would be an insult to the average Dartmouth student's intelligence and maturity level. The notion that "parodies" be labelled as such also demonstrates a disturbing lack of faith in a student body selected for the power of its minds.
In addition, the proposed restriction requiring publications to consult with the College lawyer before printing certain words only adds more needless bureaucratic restrictions to an already difficult process.
Accountability is the vital concept which student publications must embrace in order to demonstrate their own responsibility and legitimacy. Publications should have a masthead in each issue with a mission statement accepting full responsibility for what it prints, and all major contributions should have bylines.
Such policy changes will encourage responsibility without detracting from student publications or compromising creativity.
While it is true that Dartmouth has a certain insularity that distinguishes it from the outside world, this seclusion is not a reason to shield Dartmouth students from the risks and benefits of free speech.
