In defense of “Fathertyme”
Editorial
Anyone who has ever attended one of our – or any other newspaper’s – daily editorial meetings, knows that they more closely resemble a large Irish family after six in the evening than any sort of a consensus-building committee. Disparate views are voiced, arguments ensue, compromises are struck and feelings hurt. Truly rare is that day when every individual walks out of the room completely satisfied, and although we’re sure it’s theoretically possible that this has happened sometime in the past, we’ve never personally witnessed it.Enter Antoine Perkins and “Fathertyme.”His Jan. 3 comic strip aroused the ire of several of our readers – not to mention editors – resulting in angry phone calls, letters, e-mails, and on one memorable occasion a personal visit, from students demanding to know why the Lantern would provide a forum for what some have found to be “a blatantly racist, historically inaccurate cartoon.”A few points of clarification.We like to believe that most points of controversy between disagreeing parties – whether political or social – would best be mediated if everyone involved would simply take a moment to remember a less complicated time in their lives, and heed the lessons taught them by their bed time stories.Just as Goldilocks found that a superior bowl of porridge and a good night’s rest were functions of a compromise between two polarities, should other disagreements reach their eventual solution.Neither too hot, nor too cold.Neither too hard, nor too soft.Neither too far right, nor too far left.Ahhh, the merits of moderation.While we have absolutely no intention of getting into a pissing contest over whether or not the “Fathertyme” submission was racist – offensive is in the eye of the beholder after all, judge for yourself – we will defend Perkins’ right to draw whatever he likes. And we will just as vehemently defend our right to publish his material if the two polarities – the myth of absolute free speech versus the slobbering jaws of censorship – may somehow be reconciled.In this instance we believe we were justified in publishing Antoine’s cartoon because, believe it or not, there was an implicit statement concerning political apathy contained in his message. Granted, it was a message some of our readers didn’t agree with or want to hear, but it was not utterly devoid of merit. And although it was little more than a thumbnail sketch of Black American history, his statement had value beyond the limitations of its form.Because we felt the cartoon had some intrinsic value, there was really no other choice but to run it. Although some of us disagreed with the gross generalizations Antoine made, this did not justify pulling it. After all, the popular mainstream comic “B.C.” has used its space to assert the superiority of the Christian religion for years; something we know for a fact many people find patently offensive. Should that be pulled as well? Of course not.It’s not surprising that some segments of the university community took offense. After all, you can’t please all of the people all of the time, and attempting to do so would be an abandonment of the newspaper’s function. We will, however, confess that much of this leaves us scratching our heads in bewilderment, wondering just when people decided that challenging their political sensibilities became a bad thing.
