Swarthmore prides itself on being a tolerant community that encourages the free flow of ideas and the opportunity for all voices to be heard. Throughout the recent controversy surrounding Robert Zoellick, The Phoenix, in its April 4 edition, portrayed the issue as if it were an evenhanded debate on campus, writing that, “an equal number of comments defending [and calling for the removal of] Zoellick exist online”, while failing to mention that the Daily Gazette comments calling for Zoellick’s removal received significantly more “thumbs down” than “thumbs up” in a clear demonstration of support for Zoellick by the campus community. The decision to lend legitimacy to the extremist viewpoint of the Zoellick protesters proved to be a mistake that culminated in the embarrassing result of Zoellick declining his honorary degree and cancelling his speech.
In his op-ed in the Daily Gazette on April 10, Dan Duncan, an editor at The Phoenix, described the consequences of the newspaper’s recent journalistic decisions and was promptly fired. The fact that Duncan was fired was hardly surprising: he openly questioned the integrity of a newspaper that he worked for in another campus publication. What was questionable was then not that Duncan was fired but why Duncan was fired, according to The Phoenix. The Phoenix’s stated reason behind Duncan’s firing was that Duncan was fired “for breaching the confidentiality of editorial board meetings” and not “for his opinions,” as the editors wrote in the comments section below Duncan’s article.
This response is deeply troubling, for it appears to be disingenuous, serving to degrade the journalistic integrity of The Phoenix. After all, Duncan hardly compromised confidentiality in his piece. The closest he appears to come to “breaching the confidentiality of the editorial board”, is his statement that, “the reasons for this [coverage], as explained to me, were that students had posted a Facebook event to further discuss Zoellick’s position at commencement.” It is difficult to understand why this oblique reference to a conversation Duncan had with some editors would constitute a fireable offense. Though it is impossible to determine for certain, it seems probable that, were the editorial board policy breached as part of an op-ed that was not openly critical of The Phoenix, the editorial board would have responded differently. As such, regardless of their stated reasoning for firing Duncan, the decision to fire him immediately after he wrote a comment criticizing the newspaper brings up suspicions of censorship.
Furthermore, the reasoning behind the decision is hypocritical. Duncan was fired after he stated an opinion that was contrary to that of a majority of the editors — the same editors who legitimized the minority opinions of the Zoellick protesters. By firing Duncan, the editors have demonstrated that they fully support the ability of people to voice minority opinions — so long as those opinions are in accordance with their own.
Firing Duncan was not the only instance this year in which The Phoenix has appeared to systematically silence the opinions of minorities on their own editorial board while simultaneously calling for a diversity of opinion on campus. At the beginning of this semester, editorial board changed its policy requiring a unanimous opinion of a 3 member Opinions Board to requiring just a majority of the 10-12 person Editorial Board. While this policy has made the editorial policy more inclusive, it has had a perverse side effect: the change has allowed the editorial board to silence those within its own ranks who disagree. Consequently, it has short-circuited the ability of the editorial board to reflect a diversity of opinions and left the official opinions of the editorial board vulnerable to being commandeered by a handful of like-minded editors.
The vulnerability of this new policy was quickly taken advantage of when the leaders of what would become the Swat Vote Yes campaign, several of whom are Phoenix editors, turned The Phoenix’s February 14 editorial calling for a referendum on Greek life into a sounding board for their agenda. While it is impossible to determine whether the opinions board would have approved the piece, it is difficult to discount the correlation of the divisive and controversial piece with The Phoenix’s new editorial policy.
I worked this year as a sports reporter for the Phoenix under Duncan. He was professional, well-informed, and helped make my first experience with journalism a positive one. I hope to continue writing for The Phoenix in the next two years, but I would like to take this opportunity to agree with Duncan that, “I hope we can learn from this recent embarrassment.” I do not mean to suggest the editors of The Phoenix had malicious intent behind any of these decisions. I would, however, like to express my sincere hope that the editors can learn and work to continue improving upon the legacy of our 132-year-old campus newspaper.
Scoop Ruxin ’15
