Roger: I have been away on assignment and on vacation, and I
regret that a response from the college is so tardy. Nevertheless, I
enclose a statement from Barbara Smith and myself. We hope that you
will be able to post it on your Web page as part of the conversation. - JLJ
Alumni, faculty, and staff have expressed some concern -- on the Web and in person -- about the publication of Student Voices of '71. We would like to take this opportunity to clarify what happened and to identify several difficult issues that we considered in making decisions.
First, what happened?
As part of our celebration of Evergreen's 25th anniversary, faculty member Richard Alexander solicited reminiscences from members of the first-year class. The intent was to prepare an exhibit for the celebration and a book for the archives. From the materials we received, Sid White selected excerpts for the exhibit. The exhibit was displayed in Library Gallery IV in the fall, and posterboards from the exhibit were displayed in a few other venues during the year. All the materials, unedited and as received, have been collected in two volumes that are available in the college Archives.
The exhibit was so successful that we decided to publish, for promotional purposes, the edited materials from the exhibit. Before we distributed the booklet externally, several people raised strong objections to stereotypic imagery in the cartoon panels by S.M. Park. We convened a multiconstituency group to talk about the issues raised by the cartoon and by the publication, and to consider a variety of alternative actions. That group struggled mightily with the issues of free speech and discrimination; it did not reach consensus, except perhaps to agree that many of our most difficult decisions are located precisely where passionately held beliefs are in conflict.
After extensive consultation, we decided not to distribute the first edition and to print a second edition without the Park cartoon. Because of this decision, S.M. Park withdrew his cartoon and would not allow it to appear even in the archive volumes; it has since appeared on the Web.
What are the issues?
Who is the author? It is clear that Park is the author/artist of his cartoon. It is also clear that it is the college that made the selections, did the excerpting, composed the exhibit and booklet. We think it is also clear that no contributor to Alexander's project had an entitlement or right to have all or any part of his or her work selected for inclusion in White's. The question is, having made the decision to include Park's cartoon, did the college have the right to change its mind?
Stereotypic imagery: Park's cartoon lampoons hippies, Greeners, Evergreen's administration, higher education, lawyers, people who work, people who use drugs, African Americans, Mexicans -- to name just a few of his targets. In doing so he draws on powerful visual symbols that evoke visceral and subliminal reactions in everyone who has been a part of our culture -- that is what gives his work its power. Those images continue to inflict real harm in our society today on Mexican Americans, African Americans and members of some other groups, and the continuing display of those images creates a hostile environment for them. Should Evergreen display those images in its promotional publications?
Judging the past by the standards of the present: We invited reminiscences of 1971-72 and many of the contributions reported, represented, and celebrated behaviors and opinions of that time that many of us might not celebrate today. A number of very thoughtful contributions reflected on the past from the viewpoint and wisdom of today. But the contributions were written today (well, last year), and the selection and editing and publication were done today. Must we not apply today's standards of evaluation to today's work? And isn't it essential that the college itself not contribute to the propagation of images that many in today's world find strongly offensive?
The medium is the message: It is extraordinary that many of the people who were dismayed by the published cartoon (including ourselves), had seen it in the exhibit and had not reacted forcefully to it in that setting. Why? In the exhibit, the cartoon was mounted on poster board and took up about the same amount of space as a displayed four-sentence quote. In the book, the cartoon took up three full pages while the four-sentence quote took up a fraction of a page. The cartoon dominated the book in a way that it did not dominate the exhibit.
The sacredness of the printed page: Is a decision not to include something in a publication fundamentally different from a decision to remove it once it has been printed? Is the act of printing a point of no return? Is a decision not to distribute something that has been printed necessarily an act of censorship? These questions become even more difficult in this day of electronic publishing.
What alternatives did we consider?
There was no consensus among people we consulted; no decision was clear or easy. We thought about simply going ahead with the distribution of the first edition as it was. We considered including with it a letter pointing out some of the issues and inviting discussion and debate. We considered not distributing it at all. We considered limiting its distribution to on-campus use for purposes of discussion only. And we considered reissuing it, changed. We decided to reissue it. At the point this decision needed to be made, there was no easy alternative.
In our view, Mr. Parks' work was not censored. We were publishing a promotional booklet, not a scholarly work, nor an archival document, nor an alumni newsletter. We decided to reissue the booklet rather than to distribute and thereby promote, as part of the promotion of the college, content that was clearly painful and demeaning to many. Evergreen has a long history of strongly defending freedom of expression. We still do. Individuals here have the freedom to express themselves as they wish, and in so doing, to bear the responsibility for that expression. Evergreen also has a long history of trying to promote respect among all people, of embracing difference and diversity rather than disparaging it.
The issues involved in this decision deserve everyone's thoughtful, intelligent consideration. We know that some people will not agree with our decision, but we hope that ongoing respectful discussion will continue to illuminate these very difficult issues. We have learned a lot from a difficult and controversial decision. Perhaps most importantly, we have realized once again how essential it is to have diverse eyes looking at our institutional publications and diverse minds taking part in institutional decisions.
8/21/97
Jane Jervis, President, E-mail: jervisj@elwha.evergreen.edu
Barbara Smith, Provost, E-mail: smithb@elwha.evergreen.edu