My final word on this

In A Modest Proposal, Jonathan Swift argues for eliminating poverty by eating children of the poor. He uses rhetorical devices called irony, sarcasm, and hyperbole. Most of us read it (or should have read it) in high school, before we came to college. A lot of people freaked out and a lot of people took it seriously. That was in England in 1729.

A Modest Proposal is not lighthearted comedy. In hindsight, it was our mistake to assume that a work as seminal as Swift's had been read and understood by our readers on the Auraria Campus. The ironic thing is that in that very same flyer that accuses the Advocate of racism contains a nod to Swift's piece, as if that wasn't enough of a tip off that the entire section and the entire issue was an April Fools joke.

I understand many students did not find a lot of the articles funny. However, our entire April 1 issue was satire. Debating whether or not something is satirical is like debating whether something is written in English. Either it is or it isn't. Satire is not a synonym for humor. Pretty much about the only thing that's debatable about satire is whether or not it's any good. If people didn't think the satire in our April Fools Issue was any good, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. 

Debating the merits of our April Fools issue in light of out paper being funded in part by student fees is totally fair, and I get it. In our defense, April Fools issues are nothing new either for us or for any alternative weekly. It's an Advocate tradition that has precedent and predates all of our tenure at the Advocate, but it's not written in stone that the editors must publish a satirical issue each April 1.

All of the Advocate's editorial positions are open for next year, as they are every year. A new editorial board can come in next year, and it will have the opportunity to decide whether or not to carry on the tradition. Also, this satirical issue happens a once a year, like all other April Fools jokes. It is just one issue out of 30 we print every school year. The other 29 issues, are spent covering campus-related news, like the rally organized against us this Monday.

Writing for the Advocate is supposed to be learning experience, and it's open to any and all UCD students who want to have their voices heard. Indeed, that's its academic purpose: for students to have their voice represented on campus and for aspiring writers and journalists to mold their craft. The Advocate is completely student-run. Unlike Metro, UCD does not have a journalism program, and so the paper is more independent than a paper like The Metropolitan; we only meet with professional advisors after an Advocate's issue has been published.

I reiterate that the Advocate is an inclusive institution, and we strive to include every student who wants their voice heard. All of us on the editorial board got to where we are by hard work and determination. We weren't appointed to our editorships through connections or "privilege," all of us earned our positions starting at the bottom as writers or photographers. That said, as we are a student publication, we have made and will continue to make mistakes. It wasn't too long ago that our former editor in chief, R Kelly Liggin, in discussing the brouhaha over the CSU's student newspaper printing the F-word, wrote, "College is the very place where we go to learn. It's that one, weird, halfway-into-the-world season in life where your work is judged, but not judged final." 

Having said that, I regret that our purpose and intent was misunderstood, and regret that some photo-illustrations came across as tasteless and offensive. I understand that feelings were hurt, and that some people were offended with the direction the paper took. To be fair, I didn't hear one comment from regular readers of the Advocate who were seriously offended by this issue. Again, perhaps it was our mistake to assume our readers read the Advocate week to week. 

However, being angry at us and upset over the paper is not an excuse to make up false things about what we did print. We never once "made fun" of rape or sexual abuse in this issue, and in fact, the word "rape" was never even mentioned. This is a wild and outrageous allegation and completely baseless. Quite frankly, it is highly irresponsible of CBS4 Denver to report this as fact. Unless all of the reports CBS4 aired were part of a belated April Fools joke, I ask CBS4 Denver to issue a correction on the air and on its website. 

Our readers, both new and old, shouldn't take this issue as wholly representative of what the Advocate does and has done. It does not undo our work covering minorities (here, here, here, and here) or women's issues (here, here, here, and here). In fact, we welcome this opportunity and ask our new readers to look at our past work and to keep up with our future work, since we still have five issues to publish this semester. Judge us by all of our work, not just this single issue. And if you're truly and honestly interested in shaping the voice of the Advocate so that it's more reflective of your voice, all you have to do is get involved. It's as simple as that.