In early December, The Lantern ran advertisements asking members of the Ohio State community to join us as columnists. In our view, these columns give students a voice different from those heard in articles and letters to the editor, in terms of perspective, style, and depth of articulation. The response was disappointing.

Out of 50,000 students, 11 people expressed interest in writing. Of those eleven, four were female. Almost all were white. Since then, six students have committed to writing on a regular basis, one of whom is female. Five of the six are white.

There is clearly a problem, but it is a problem much easier described in numbers than in words. It seems indicators of a successful resolution would also come in the form of numbers instead of words. Notice, though, that the resolution itself is not necessarily the numbers of this minority or that minority. We do not succeed when we have a “proper proportion” of voices representing our community, but when the voices actually do it.

So we have to ask ourselves why, at least in our paper, they are not.

Do we inadvertently create an atmosphere in our newsroom detrimental to diverse opinions, perspectives, and backgrounds?

Do the issues we cover on this page and elsewhere not speak to the needs, feelings, and experiences of part of our audience? For those whose voice is not heard, does The Lantern not seem like it is their paper, too?

Is there a problem with the sample itself? Eleven of 50,000 surely could not hope to represent the entirety of diversity at our university. Would a larger sample yield more diversity?

Is there something wrong with the newspaper as a medium itself? Is the written word an outdated mode of expression of which a few of us have yet to let go? Has the news become so out of style through its negativity and seriousness that it’s no longer cool to put oneself out there to make a statement?

Has The Lantern spelled one too many things wrong for it to be cool to write for us?

Is there something in the tradition of writing that is carried in some cultures and not others? Does an institution of a male-dominated society not cater to the needs of its female population?

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, where has the discussion gone? If diverse expression does not manifest itself here, does it take place somewhere else like text messages, Irish pubs, or YouTube? We ask because we need the discussion somewhere. Michael Richards’ tirade of racist slurs saturated the news, but what discussion came out of that?

In the next two years, we may see frontrunners for the presidency who are either female or African-American. In a former slave-holding country, which waited until long after emancipation to give women the right to vote, what does it mean to be an assertive female or a black leader?

The cool part of diverse expression is that it works in two directions. Where on one hand it represents one’s own background and experiences, and sometimes pushes for change or action based on that, it does so by reaching out and helping others understand who you are, and from which backgrounds and experiences you come. We are trying to step beyond defining diversity as percentages and start portraying it through diverse experiences, backgrounds, identity, and circumstance. In the end, we all have needs, we all have feelings and we all have some common ground to stand upon together to help us relate to things that aren’t so common.