Harvard’s The Voice recently ignited a controversy on campus after it published an article titled “5 People You’ll See at Pre-Interview Receptions.” The article, originally published under the name of the full staff but later clarified to represent the opinions of only one anonymous individual, contained offensive comments about what the author dubbed the “Asian” category. The article covered a range of the ugliest, most harmful, and erroneous stereotypes about Asian students, from soulless careerism to indistinguishable appearances.
In reaction to the ensuing uproar, one editor of The Voice posted a response to the situation. Seemingly heartfelt and sincere, the apology clarified that the organization did not endorse the contents of the article and that, gosh darn it, many of the editors even disagreed with the sentiments expressed in the articles. Sadly, however, the author of the response then felt the need to clarify that The Voice “believes in free speech and the right to personal opinions.” Putting aside the sheer banality inherent in any statement clarifying that a student publication “believes in free speech,” the implications of this argument are nearly as offensive as the original article.
Of course, The Voice is right to maintain a policy of supporting free speech. Controversial and unpopular opinions deserve to be heard, and student publications have a responsibility to represent diverse views. However, an almost universally agreed upon caveat to this statement is that petty racism and asinine attacks on ethnic groups don’t meet the standard for publication. Ultimately, The Voice chooses selectively what it will and will not publish.
The Voice is not required to publish only popular, politically correct, or uncontroversial opinions. We as a community, though, do have a reasonable expectation that publications will only elevate opinions that contribute in some way to a broader conversation. The very concept of free speech relies on the idea that society is capable of exercising discernment in taste without intervention by the government. The Voice has failed to uphold this most basic responsibility. In employing “freedom of speech” as a defense for its actions, The Voice either misunderstands its own editorial prerogative or, perhaps more troublingly, mistakes this intellectually lazy excuse for humor as something worthy of elevation.
Ultimately, the article published in The Voice matters very little. The level of elevation that comes with being published in The Voice is admittedly fairly small. Yet the underlying sentiments expressed in the article are, troublingly, widely held, and the discrimination faced by Asian Americans is discussed far too little. Hopefully the poor choices of The Voice’s editorial board can be the beginning of a more honest and direct conversation about often ignored racist attitudes towards Asian Americans.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.