From One Editor To Another

I would like to correct a number of inaccuracies in an article concerning complaints filed by the Valentine's Day Coalition against The Daily Pennsylvanian that appeared in your September issue. The article, written by Marc Stein, related his version of the events that led 11 faculty members and graduate students -- including himself -- to file complaints against the DP, charging it with discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals because the paper printed a certain advertisement. It is true that on February 14, 1991, the DP did publish an advertisement by Polo Bay restaurant that offered couples a dinner special. In fine print underneath the offer, the ad stated that couples "must be of the opposite sex." According to Polo Bay, the restaurant did not want a group of friends taking advantage of the offer as opposed to romantic couples; however, the wording was perceived as discriminatory. A while later the Valentine's Day Coalition, filed complaints against the restaurant. They also filed complaints against the DP for printing the ad, saying that by printing the ad we discriminated against gays, lesbians and bisexuals. The group said we violated an ordinance which essentially states that places of public accommodation, such as restaurants, cannot advertise or implement a policy of refusing services to customers on the basis of such factors as race, sex, or sexual orientation. The coalition claims that the DP is an "agent" of the restaurant and should be held liable for the advertisement. However, the story in the graduate student newspaper reflected only Stein's misunderstandings of the situation, his misrepresentations of our conversations, and a lack of basic journalistic ethics and skill. First of all, The Daily Pennsylvanian has never been found in violation of the city's anti-discrimination code, the false statement to the contrary reported in The Graduate Perspective notwithstanding. The newspaper is not an agent of the advertiser in any way, and is not included in the ordinance as accountable for such an ad. Also, contrary to what Stein wrote, I never said the DP could not criticize advertisers and so would not issue an editorial apology as he demanded. If that were true, the newspaper would not be writing half the editorials that it prints. We are free to criticize, (and we do quite liberally), the Undergraduate Assembly, the administration and countless other University offices -- all of whom are significant advertisers, much more so than Polo Bay. The idea that the newspaper was too afraid to take an editorial stance against an advertiser is not only ludicrous, but has been clearly disproved time and time again. What I did say, and what was reported on the front page of the April 2, 1991 issue of the DP was that "the DP does not condone discrimination of any kind, including sexual orientation" and that "by publishing an ad, we are not commenting on or endorsing the advertisement's content." Stein also writes that the DP did not report on any summer developments. That is because there were none of any significance whatsoever. Stein can be assured that future newsworthy developments will be duly reported in the newspaper. Furthermore, every single letter to the editor submitted to the DP regarding the ad has been printed, and the DP reported on the matter on its front page. The newspaper definitely has not been trying to hide anything. Contrary to what Stein has written, I have been very willing to speak to him about the complaint, talking to him over the phone at least a half a dozen times. My door is always open. Additionally, Stein referred to an alleged incident in which a DP representative refused to accept an advertisement from a lesbian support group, allegedly saying that "The DP doesn't print this shit." This incident allegedly occurred over one year ago (which Stein translated as meaning "recently"). Unfortunately, no one ever saw fit to tell us directly of this alleged incident at the time so that we could determine what had happened, if anything, and act appropriately. Instead, we heard only after-the-fact rumors through second-hand sources about some kind of incident occurring -- rumors which despite our efforts to find out what had happened have never been substantiated. If Stein has real, hard information that the DP was offered and refused to publish the ad, I would appreciate him sharing this information directly with me, something he has not done. Furthermore, the article states that the DP refused to publish the Valentine's Day Coalition's statement over the summer. This too is patently false. After talking to Stein Sunday night, he conceded his article was in error, and that he was actually referring to last spring when I refused his demand for a free full page in the newspaper to print the coalition's statement. Although I was not and still am not willing to give the coalition a full page of the newspaper free of charge, I was and I remain willing to print the statement on the editorial page. Submissions to the editorial page are welcome from any person or group who would like to air their views. Finally, it should be noted that there was no concerted effort on the part of Stein or The Graduate Perspective to get the DP's side of the story. Not only is this considered a basic tenet of reporting, but such an effort could have avoided printing the inaccuracies. An editor's note accompanying the article states that the DP was "contacted for a response" and that "no comments were received at press time." What I assume the newspaper is referring to is when someone called the DP office Friday afternoon -- shortly before the graduate newspaper would be going to press -- and asked to speak with me or another editor. Because no one was in at the time, the caller was asked if she would like to leave a message, so that I could call her back. The caller did not leave a phone number and promptly hung up. The graduate student newspaper appeared on campus two days later. Although I understand that the September issue is the first Graduate Perspective, I would assume that the newspaper would make some attempt at fairness in what appeared to be a news story. But, as Stein said to me Sunday night, "Not every journalist buys into a New York Times definition of objectivity." Since the advertisement ran, I have heard numerous inaccurate stories about myself and about the DP. For example, coalition members had told a Philadelphia Gay News reporter that I was unwilling to issue an editorial apology because as an Asian woman, I am worried about being labeled weak and submissive. Interesting theory, but completely off base and just plain wrong. Why they ever fabricated this lie and told it to a reporter, I'll never know. At least I got a chance to dispell this rumor because the reporter called me. Believe it or not, I can make decisions independent of my race. Does the coalition believe a white male would have been stronger in "facing up to his mistakes" and apologizing than a woman of color? Well, this woman of color feels perfectly comfortable admitting her honest mistakes, but won't shut up in the face of spurious accusations when she can respond with the truth. Helen Jung is a senior English major from Youngstown, Ohio and is executive editor of The Daily Pennsylvanian. No Tagbacks appears alternate Tuesdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.