The Daily Targum - " + artTitle.replace("-","") + " - " + "Daily Targum" + " - is a student-written and student-managed, non-profit incorporated newspaper of Rutgers University published by the Targum Publishing Company, with a circulation of 17,000. Founded in 1869, The Daily Targum is the second oldest and among the largest college newspapers in the nation. Like it or NOT, this paper is at the center of this firestorm and opinions expressed within these pages are widely read. If one has a marked difference with the paper's opinions, I highly recommend submitting a letter or even posting a comment to the article above at the noted link. The following is the most recent EDITORIAL and the RESPONSE.
Media exploits University tragedy
http://www.dailytargum.com/opinions/media-exploits-university-tragedy-1.2354299
Editorial
Published: Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Updated: Friday, October 8, 2010 19:10
The death of University student Tyler Clementi might have been properly mourned if it were not for the massive rallies and aggressive news coverage that altered the nature of the situation. The truth is that an 18-year-old boy killed himself - he was a student just like the rest of us, someone just trying to receive an education. Yet people's relentless agendas took his death and turned it into a cause based on false pretenses.
A crowd of more than 20 people ended up lying outside the entrance of the Rutgers Student Center on the College Avenue campus the first night of the news breaking. The chants were, "We're here. We're queer. We want safety in our homes." The mistake was that Clementi's death should not have been turned into a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender protest for gay rights and safe spaces at the University. Robert O'Brien, Department of Anthropology assistant instructor, led the rally as he chanted, "Not safe in dorms, not safe at Rutgers." Essentially, an angry mob fending for their rights turned the death of a young boy into a cause for "safe spaces" for gays across the University - all the while, these spaces already existed. We have groups across campus that deal with students' psychological difficulties - 17 Minutes is one that deals with suicides - as well as groups that address their sexual orientation. We have these spaces, and the University community is diverse enough to provide students with whatever it is they need.
The focal point of Clementi's tragic death should have been a boy's inability to deal with the hardships of life. And yet the news and certain organizations picked this up and carried it into the ranks of general causes for major social groups - for their profit. Did Tyler really feel unsafe after all? Do we know the reason behind his suicide? Do we know if he, himself, would take part in the movement behind his death - the push for safe spaces?
It is disappointing that everyone from news to celebrities picked up the story. Actress Brittany Snow and actor Neil Patrick-Harris are just two of the many celebrities belittling Clementi's death - forcing his remembrance into a cause rather than a proper mourning.
We did not know Tyler. It was barely three weeks into his first year at the University, and most of his neighbors in his residence hall barely knew him. Turning his death into a push for gay rights is a fallacy. Homosexuality is not the only reason for which people kill themselves. In this case, it might have pushed Clementi over the edge, but the fact that he was gay should by no means turn his death into a march for safe spaces. These groups want to be heard. They want the attention. They want their agendas to shine in the limelight.
Instead, we should address that the signs of a suicidal 18-year-old kid were unseen and went unnoticed, not "We want safety in our homes." We have the safety, or as much of it as we together as a University community can in today's world. What we need is to notice those of us who need help and help them. Entertainers stay away. O'Brien leave the issue alone. Let us - family, friends and the University together - mourn for Clementi, and just for him, rather than using him as a martyr for a cause that has yet to be proven.
Engage in intelligent debate
http://www.dailytargum.com/opinions/engage-in-intelligent-debate-1.2359013
By Patrick Danner
Published: Thursday, October 7, 2010
Updated: Thursday, October 7, 2010 21:10
Earlier this week, The Daily Targum published an editorial, "Media exploits University tragedy," concerning the suicide of University first-year student Tyler Clementi and the media outbreak surrounding it. While I do not entirely agree with the content of the editorial, I still feel the need to defend the paper's right to print the stories they choose and the writers' liberties to express them.
The backlash from the editorial has been incredible, and I speak specifically of the slew of online comments posted at dailytargum.com. In no uncertain terms I will stand by my view that the backlash against the article was more disgusting than the crime it discussed. Several posts have called for the resignation of the entire Targum board and one anonymous post went as far as to say of one board member, "send this russian peasant back to russia where he can write communistic editorials like the Kremlin likes." A few alumni have even reported shame of being associated with the University and one called for the editors of the paper to leap off the George Washington Bridge themselves.
Again, to me, that's more disgusting than the crime committed.
I feel for the Clementi family and my heart goes out to them - I have no idea what it is like to be in their situation, nor in their son's. But if we are to resort to the type of name-calling, threats and insults, all of which can be found in full on the Targum website, then are we not resorting to a breach of rights ourselves? If we are to demonize anyone, let alone an entire University, for the expression of their opinion, then that to me is evidence that we are doing exactly what the editorial has accused us of, which is failing to see and failing to listen.
The editorial was controversial. There is no doubting that. And in its efforts to expand a deep and meaningful discussion of Clementi's death, all it has produced is an outpouring of hateful attacks and comments from disappointed mothers and alumni. For this neither the writer, nor the Targum, is at fault. Those at fault are the ones who, upon disagreeing with the editorial as I did, failed to note the larger implications and engage in a widespread discussion of the events - not one restrained to one cause. Not one with a single scapegoat.
So, while ultimately and profoundly disagreeing with the editorial, I applaud the Targum staff for this - making it known that the death of Clementi should be discussed not only as an issue of homophobia but also an issue of privacy. It should be seen not only as an issue of sexuality but also of technology and the implications of media coverage in the wake of tragedy. We at the University are a center of higher learning, why does it seem we can't handle at least that much?
For those of you who took a level stance for or against the editorial without resorting to attacks against the writer or the publication and without dismissing the entire University as such, I applaud you as well.
Unfortunately, I don't think my 750 words or anyone else's will change this. People will always resort to attacks when angered or threatened. Evolution sort of makes us. But as educated students I at least hope that the small percentage of us who reached the Opinions section of the Targum today will recognize that this is where our opinions are threatened, this is where we will be angered. The Opinions are for people to express their opinions. If you are at all uncertain of this, see the top of the page.
The printing of the editorial, to my knowledge, was done so by Targum guidelines and, in my eyes, expressed nothing inflammatory. Simply controversial. But for people to have responded as they did - by verbally attacking the writer, the Targum and the University - was disappointing for me to see. Disagree with the writer. I certainly do. But do so respectfully and intelligently if you want to make it public. The calls to send the writer to Russia, for the board to resign and for the University to be ashamed of itself seem to me absolutely absurd. In fact, one comment went as far as to insist that the editorial "must be satire." To this I say the only thing satirical about the entire situation was the response it garnered. Because if they're not with us, they should resign, right? Truly satirical to Orwellian proportions.
Media exploits University tragedy
http://www.dailytargum.com/opinions/media-exploits-university-tragedy-1.2354299
Editorial
Published: Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Updated: Friday, October 8, 2010 19:10
The death of University student Tyler Clementi might have been properly mourned if it were not for the massive rallies and aggressive news coverage that altered the nature of the situation. The truth is that an 18-year-old boy killed himself - he was a student just like the rest of us, someone just trying to receive an education. Yet people's relentless agendas took his death and turned it into a cause based on false pretenses.
A crowd of more than 20 people ended up lying outside the entrance of the Rutgers Student Center on the College Avenue campus the first night of the news breaking. The chants were, "We're here. We're queer. We want safety in our homes." The mistake was that Clementi's death should not have been turned into a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender protest for gay rights and safe spaces at the University. Robert O'Brien, Department of Anthropology assistant instructor, led the rally as he chanted, "Not safe in dorms, not safe at Rutgers." Essentially, an angry mob fending for their rights turned the death of a young boy into a cause for "safe spaces" for gays across the University - all the while, these spaces already existed. We have groups across campus that deal with students' psychological difficulties - 17 Minutes is one that deals with suicides - as well as groups that address their sexual orientation. We have these spaces, and the University community is diverse enough to provide students with whatever it is they need.
The focal point of Clementi's tragic death should have been a boy's inability to deal with the hardships of life. And yet the news and certain organizations picked this up and carried it into the ranks of general causes for major social groups - for their profit. Did Tyler really feel unsafe after all? Do we know the reason behind his suicide? Do we know if he, himself, would take part in the movement behind his death - the push for safe spaces?
It is disappointing that everyone from news to celebrities picked up the story. Actress Brittany Snow and actor Neil Patrick-Harris are just two of the many celebrities belittling Clementi's death - forcing his remembrance into a cause rather than a proper mourning.
We did not know Tyler. It was barely three weeks into his first year at the University, and most of his neighbors in his residence hall barely knew him. Turning his death into a push for gay rights is a fallacy. Homosexuality is not the only reason for which people kill themselves. In this case, it might have pushed Clementi over the edge, but the fact that he was gay should by no means turn his death into a march for safe spaces. These groups want to be heard. They want the attention. They want their agendas to shine in the limelight.
Instead, we should address that the signs of a suicidal 18-year-old kid were unseen and went unnoticed, not "We want safety in our homes." We have the safety, or as much of it as we together as a University community can in today's world. What we need is to notice those of us who need help and help them. Entertainers stay away. O'Brien leave the issue alone. Let us - family, friends and the University together - mourn for Clementi, and just for him, rather than using him as a martyr for a cause that has yet to be proven.
Engage in intelligent debate
http://www.dailytargum.com/opinions/engage-in-intelligent-debate-1.2359013
By Patrick Danner
Published: Thursday, October 7, 2010
Updated: Thursday, October 7, 2010 21:10
Earlier this week, The Daily Targum published an editorial, "Media exploits University tragedy," concerning the suicide of University first-year student Tyler Clementi and the media outbreak surrounding it. While I do not entirely agree with the content of the editorial, I still feel the need to defend the paper's right to print the stories they choose and the writers' liberties to express them.
The backlash from the editorial has been incredible, and I speak specifically of the slew of online comments posted at dailytargum.com. In no uncertain terms I will stand by my view that the backlash against the article was more disgusting than the crime it discussed. Several posts have called for the resignation of the entire Targum board and one anonymous post went as far as to say of one board member, "send this russian peasant back to russia where he can write communistic editorials like the Kremlin likes." A few alumni have even reported shame of being associated with the University and one called for the editors of the paper to leap off the George Washington Bridge themselves.
Again, to me, that's more disgusting than the crime committed.
I feel for the Clementi family and my heart goes out to them - I have no idea what it is like to be in their situation, nor in their son's. But if we are to resort to the type of name-calling, threats and insults, all of which can be found in full on the Targum website, then are we not resorting to a breach of rights ourselves? If we are to demonize anyone, let alone an entire University, for the expression of their opinion, then that to me is evidence that we are doing exactly what the editorial has accused us of, which is failing to see and failing to listen.
The editorial was controversial. There is no doubting that. And in its efforts to expand a deep and meaningful discussion of Clementi's death, all it has produced is an outpouring of hateful attacks and comments from disappointed mothers and alumni. For this neither the writer, nor the Targum, is at fault. Those at fault are the ones who, upon disagreeing with the editorial as I did, failed to note the larger implications and engage in a widespread discussion of the events - not one restrained to one cause. Not one with a single scapegoat.
So, while ultimately and profoundly disagreeing with the editorial, I applaud the Targum staff for this - making it known that the death of Clementi should be discussed not only as an issue of homophobia but also an issue of privacy. It should be seen not only as an issue of sexuality but also of technology and the implications of media coverage in the wake of tragedy. We at the University are a center of higher learning, why does it seem we can't handle at least that much?
For those of you who took a level stance for or against the editorial without resorting to attacks against the writer or the publication and without dismissing the entire University as such, I applaud you as well.
Unfortunately, I don't think my 750 words or anyone else's will change this. People will always resort to attacks when angered or threatened. Evolution sort of makes us. But as educated students I at least hope that the small percentage of us who reached the Opinions section of the Targum today will recognize that this is where our opinions are threatened, this is where we will be angered. The Opinions are for people to express their opinions. If you are at all uncertain of this, see the top of the page.
The printing of the editorial, to my knowledge, was done so by Targum guidelines and, in my eyes, expressed nothing inflammatory. Simply controversial. But for people to have responded as they did - by verbally attacking the writer, the Targum and the University - was disappointing for me to see. Disagree with the writer. I certainly do. But do so respectfully and intelligently if you want to make it public. The calls to send the writer to Russia, for the board to resign and for the University to be ashamed of itself seem to me absolutely absurd. In fact, one comment went as far as to insist that the editorial "must be satire." To this I say the only thing satirical about the entire situation was the response it garnered. Because if they're not with us, they should resign, right? Truly satirical to Orwellian proportions.
Last edited:
