Editorial response to April Fools Issue
Published: Friday, April 2, 2010
Updated: Tuesday, April 6, 2010 02:04
 "Photo: photo illustration: Mitch Ramos / UCD Advocate")
photo illustration: Mitch Ramos / UCD Advocate
Nudity will not be tolerated in any form. Not even dancing aliens.
Since the publication of the Aprils Fools issue of the Advocate, a work of satire in the tradition of college newspapers and alternative weeklies around the country, students have coordinated a response to material in the issue they considered offensive. That content has been described as racist and inappropriate.
On April 1, a group of students removed roughly half of the circulated copies of the Advocate from distribution bins around campus. Students and other Advocate readers have posted intimidating and threatening comments in response to the story which has drawn particular ire, Jef Otte's weekly column, "The Hairy Eyeball."
The Advocate's staff view removing newspaper and threats to news writers as acts of censorship. Removing papers both deprives Advocate staff of their First Amendment freedoms and Auraria campus students of their right to read their campus newspaper. And threatening a news reporter—one who has consistently written columns and stories promoting the rights of the groups he is now said to have injured—does not promote safety or unity on this campus.
The newspaper is being redistributed through the end of this week.
Students have also started to organize a protest of the Advocate, scheduled for 11 a.m. Monday, April 5 at the flagpole on campus (that information comes from a flyer found on campus. Further details will be added as available).
Our publication exercises the right to free speech, and the practice of it as published on April 1 is protected under court precedent for the freedom of the press, particularly regarding satire. As we have exercised this right, we encourage other students to use it as well, as they will in this protest Monday.
We encourage interested students to attend the protest or write letters to the editor, which can be emailed to the editor in chief and will be published in subsequent issues of the newspaper.
Editorial staff members have met with members of the group of students who have voiced their concerns to hear their opinions and expressed our views and intentions.
It is unfortunate that some of the content in the newspaper was interpreted as hurtful or ignorant. As a work of satire, it was intended to parody those hurtful and ignorant views, not foster them.
The Advocate editorial board
38 comments
Anonymous
Jesus - I agree with you. Well said.
Anonymous
i don't want my child to know mexican because its not a language
Anonymous
It was funny... you are all too sensitive.
mason hohstadt
I must admit I don't read the Advocate on a consistent basis. I will now. Not because of the use of satire, lets face it the only publication that seems to get it right 90% of the time is The Onion, but rather because of the response by the editors and writers responses.I didn't read the issue, but so far I haven't heard anything regarding the LGBT community. I wonder if the protesters would/did stand up for those on campus who are a part of that group. I say this because as I walked to the NC computer lab an individual who was exiting the track (I don't know if they were affiliated with a sports team but all had on running attire) called out to two fellow individuals a short distance away and called them "lover boys". He did so without a thought or care. Maybe the two guys are lovers, but I dare say I don't think so. How can any person say that they are offended by these issues when there is still derogatory speech leveled at/against students in this manner, off-hand and not meant to hurt, but still does?If you're not going to fight for all, you're shouldn't even start.
Anonymous
The saddest part about this whole thing...no one seems to understand what Satire is. The paper was not a satire; saying 'i don't want my child to know Mexican' that's racist, not satirical.
RJ Owen
This was by far the best issue of The Advocate to date. The response of the students who were offended and the administration, especially our "Student Body President"'s ridiculous email, is, quite frankly, embarrassing. People who cannot understand the value of humor are not educated, are not enlightened, and are not inspirational; they are simply dead inside.
P. Welch of Colorado
What little I was able to find about this article seemed basically to be juvenile, insulting, snark-snark.... "we're all growd up students w/rights" babble. I also note that most folks responding about free speech rights and satire (very vehemently), do so anonymously. Speak loud and hide your face? Use April Fools as a cover up? (how uncreative) Better yet, study harder, be grateful for a chance to educate yourselves and learn about what true free speech and satire are.
I was in San Diego thru February, when the UC San Diego Koala newspaper once again hit bigger news , as well. "Racial put-down" parties and bad slop being printed are happening all thru Calif. What I see is a trend of one college copying other in attempts to act rude, immature and small. Lord, not even an original shot. shame on it all.
I was in San Diego thru February, when the UC San Diego Koala newspaper once again hit bigger news , as well. "Racial put-down" parties and bad slop being printed are happening all thru Calif. What I see is a trend of one college copying other in attempts to act rude, immature and small. Lord, not even an original shot. shame on it all.
Anonymous
So much for free speech at UCD. The only free speech you get at this university is the liberal dogma found in the classroom.
Anonymous
It seems to me that some folks think that just because they have an education - they no longer have to think. In my opinion, the Advocate staff is loudly bleating “freedom of speech” to defend what is really only "stupid speech.” This advocate issue and its silly defense remind me of a bunch of 12 year olds huddled around a dictionary giggling at “nasty” words and repeating them inanely – “because they can” or of an irresponsible parent who beats their child – “because they can.” Yes, the Advocate has a “right” to free speech. The Advocate also has the responsibility to live up to its mission – of being a newspaper. And the Advocate also has to take accountability when it needlessly writes something that 1) is NOT news, and 2) offends its entire constituent base.Obviously the staff at the Advocate has never heard of thinking before they act. However, rather than attack the writers, I think a better question would be “Who trusted this serious responsibility of putting out University Student news into the hands of a bunch of silly and immature writers who use words without thinking and then defend themselves by hiding behind “Free speech?” Don’t these student writers have an appointed advisor with any more maturity and good judgment than they?
Anonymous
The articles published in the April 1st issue of the UCD Advocate where intended as satire. They offended some, which is regrettable. But the response from students is, however, unforgivable. Removing issues of the Advocate from newsstands is a violation of state and federal law, and of the Advocate's constitutional rights.
Alessio
I understand that there are people who lack the particular sense of humor needed to appreciate the April Fool's day articles. I also understand how these articles might have been perceived to be racist and offensive, taking into consideration that there are idiots out there who actually share the view that Jef satirically shared. However, I believe it is vital that Jef and the Advocate editorial board do NOT apologize for the articles. As a student newspaper of a modern, American university, I feel it's the duty of The Advocate to educate the masses about protection of free speech. We all read about the Muslim riots in response to the Danish cartoons, and many of us have watched the "Cartoon Wars" South Park episode. Free speech is under threat, and we cannot allow it to be hijacked, regardless of how offended you feel or how un-funny you thought the articles were. If Jef or the editor of The Advocate were to be fired or were to resign, it would truly be the death of free speech at UC Denver, and I for one would be ashamed to call myself a UC Denver student. I hope Roy Wilson realizes this, and does not put any undue pressure on the college press to apologize.
Anonymous
I also didn't think it was funny, kind of dumb really, but I do find it unfortunate that people who were trying to be funny, not hateful, are getting so much negative energy thrown at them. Yes, some subjects are more potentially offensive than others. Better judgment may have prevented this article from appearing in the Advocate. It turns out that playing with stereotypes in a comedic fashion is a very dangerous thing. Therefore you would all be wiser to avoid it. Nevertheless please, those of you who are as angry as you have shown yourselves to be, your anger belongs to you alone, not sloppy newspaper editors. By choosing to be angry you would only give more power to the racism were it intended. You are strong individuals and deserve more respect from yourselves.
Anonymous
Well, thank (insert religious figure of your choice here) that PC America is still around so that if anyone of (insert PC name of your choice) descent won't have to be insulted by crackers any more! Lets burn them at the stake (unless someone is offended by the presence of fire, or there are vampires present, actual witches, etc.), making sure the smoke also does not offend anyone (perhaps a filter for any potential fuzzy critters or pretty things that be affected by such smoke, old people, ex-smokers, children, etc.).But hey, they're white, right, so its OK to hate them. Its not racist if you hate the white people that write an article. Thank (insert religious figure of your choice) that no one of color was in any way responsible for any of this, or it would have to be taken solely as a joke, a piece of satire or even a political statement in itself for the state of racism in this country.And thank (insert religious figure of your choice) that people have absolutely nothing to do but to look for things to be insulted about. I'm sure that everyone that was at today's rally is getting an A in every class and could afford to miss a class to condemn whitey! Rock on people! Power to anyone but whitey! Screw whitey! Because, its not racist if you hate whitey.
Anonymous
To all those who are saying that everyone has freedom of speech of speech, it is true, we all should all be free to say whatever we wish, but why should we pay to publish something that is only going to insult us.
Anonymous
Thanks for your efforts from the faculty and staff. I found your satire both funny and entertaining.Your writing does indeed serve as an educational opportunity: the pen is mightier than the sword and satire is only funny to a liberal if it spoofs the Tea Part, whites, Catholics, Christians, the military, Republicans, and conservatives. If it spoofs anything else, it is racist and mean spirited.Thanks again for your satire. Next time, stick to lampooning whites. The administration will sleep through that issue.
Anonymous
I am embarrassed to be at the same institution as people that viewed Jef Otte's article as hate speech.It reflects poorly on UCD and the many wonderful instructors I've had that critical thinking skills and an inability to recognize and place a text in context are so woefully absent from much of the student body.I'll be interested to hear about how John Swift was a monster because "it's not funny to joke about eating babies at all" in my next literature course. I feel like the display of outrage devalues the education I've received at UCD. These people should not receive the same degree as hardworking students with basic reading comprehension skills.
Anonymous
I am usually a fan of satire, but this was horrible. I am a conservative Hispanic, and most of everything in this piece is an opinion that I would agree with. With that said, the manner in which it was written is completely unbecoming of a student newspaper which claims to be objective and unbiased, even if it was the April Fools edition. I don't disagree with the content; I disagree with the manner, tone and perceived hate with which it was written and the medium it appeared in. Clearly the author isn't any good at writing satire and I'm willing to give him a pass for this piece. I think the editors deserve the majority of the blame for allowing an article like this into the newspaper thinking that we would understand it as satire or consider it to be funny. I'm more upset that my tuition dollars go toward such horrible journalism than I am about the content. They have their First Amendment right to publish articles like this, but we also have the right to not read it. I'm sure this whole issue will result in lower readership, and it doesn't look like The Advocate can afford any fewer readers than it already has.
Anonymous
Hey, at least you'll get more than 4% of the student body to read the newspaper now!
Anonymous
Not only was the Hairy Eyeball article funny it represents the RIGHT of FREE SPEACH in America. I have been attending UCD for 3 years and my money also goes towards the paper and I have absolutely no problem with the paper or its content. As a matter of fact I would like to see a less left leaning bias to the paper and more focus on REAL JOURNALISM in regards to stating the facts and letting the students make up their own minds regarding the issues.As far as ALL THE CRY BABIES at the RALLY TODAY who call it SOCIAL JUSTICE and felt they are being oppressed by satiric content in the paper, I just have one thing to say. LIMITING FREE SPEACH and asking for better control of content is WHAT IS TRULY OPPRESSIVE! The Bill of Rights guarantees us the RIGHT to FREE SPEACH, IT DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE RIGHT FOR EVERYONE TO LIKE IT!Bottom line is that all students need to be very wary of anyone who uses the word SOCIAL and ECONOMIC JUSTICE because these are just buzz words for what they are really after. OPPRESSION of INDIVIDUALISM and collectivism. Don't be fooled by these BUZZ WORDS that are indoctrinated the naive into a socialist mindset that will rob your of your rights though government intervention. Not everyone is going to like you, or like what you say however; as an AMERICAN you have a right to your opinion without ANY FILTERS and these whiners need to just suck it up and get their diapers changed.
Anonymous
Not only was the Hairy Eyeball article funny it represents the RIGHT of FREE SPEACH in America. I have been attending UCD for 3 years and my money also goes towards the paper and I have absolutely no problem with the paper or its content. As a matter of fact I would like to see a less leaning bias to the paper and more focus on REAL JOURNALISM in regards to stating the facts and letting the students make up their own minds regarding the issues. As far as ALL THE CRY BABIES at the RALLY TODAY who call it SOCIAL JUSTICE and felt they are being oppressed by satiric content in the paper, I just have one thing to say. LIMITING FREE SPEACH and asking for control better control of content is TRULY OPPRESSIVE! The Bill of Rights guarantees us the RIGHT to FREE SPEACH, not the RIGHT FOR EVERYONE TO LIKE IT! Bottom line is that all students need to be very wary of anyone who uses the word SOCIAL and ECONOMIC because these are just buzz words for what they are really after. OPPRESSION of INDIVIDUALISM and collectivism. Don't be fooled by these BUZZ WORDS that are indoctrinated the naive into a socialist mindset that will rob your of your rights though government intervention. Not everyone is going to like you, or like what you say however; as an AMERICAN you have a right to your opinion without ANY FILTERS and these whiners need to just suck it up and get their diapers changed.
is a member of the 
