Article Removed
In the last issue of The Newt we published an article entitled “Jewish Economic Policy” which attracted a number of complaints from readers, both on the website and via email. The article has been removed permanently online; we have been in contact with College officials during the discussions concerning this article, and have tried to ensure that it was removed as quickly as possible.
The article, which was intended to be satirical, was at the same time deeply offensive to some of our readership. We entirely accept that its humour was both inappropriate and distasteful, and was representative of a type of humour based on prejudiced stereotyping that should not be perpetuated., and apologise for the offence it has caused.
We have taken from this episode some valuable lessons that will help us to be better writers and editors in the future, and at the same time are working to establish a new complaints procedure in order to handle any future concerns more effectively.
Come on, can’t you be funny without being racist? This is quite tasteless, and either VERY childish, or quite worrying!
This article is deeply offensive and hurtful. That New College would allow anti-Semitic rhetoric - even if presented supposedly in jest - to be published makes me ashamed to be an Oxford student.
“lyrical genius is not a talent we all possess”
It’s obviously not a talent this author possesses since this article is now being emailed around by people outraged by its anti-Semitism, so expect to see this in the student rags next week in yet another “college bogsheet causes outrage” story. I’m all for absolute freedom of the press, but you could at least try to be funny when you’re politically incorrect. “Jews are tight, har har” is not exactly the height of risque humour.
I think this is a very offensive and racist article indeed. I do not quite understand how the author wrote what he did. and how the editorial team (if there is any editing at all) allowed this to be published. Just reading the comments above - a) this article is not funny at all b) it is definitely very worrying.
Wow. The author needs to get a clue. More importantly, the editors need to get a clue. I find your apology pathetic: “We are truly sorry for any offense caused.” No, you own up to your asinine lack of editorial judgment and say that you are sorry for publishing an extremely offensive article. That’s why the offense was caused–the article was offensive. Plain and simple. You should be tendering your resignation.
Quoting from Nazi sources to make a joke usually blows up in your face. It beats me how *anybody* can think it might NOT be offensive, inappropriate and plainly stupid to try and amuse readers this way. As for editing and screeing the material that actually goes up on this website - there might be a problem if the author is also on the editorial team. At the rate with which this article is still being sent around campus, I suggest you put up a more convincing apology.
I’m outraged, but not for the same reasons as the above contributors. I’m outraged that something being ‘offensive’ is now just cause for it to be censored. I haven’t read this article since it has now been removed, and since I’m of Jewish heritage, I may well have been offended by it. Maybe I’d have been upset, and felt the author was mocking part of my identity and my family’s history. But so what? That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be read. Plenty of people have been offended throughout history by things which we now consider great art. I’m not saying this article constitutes great art (even without seeing it I imagine it doesn’t…) but if you curb people’s ability to say what they like because people might get OFFENDED, that’s pretty much the end. Unless this article broke the law by inciting violence or criminality, or was in contempt of court, or constituted libel or defamation against an individual, it is protected speech, and your moral outrage and calls for resignation make you sound small-minded and not a little scary to people whio believe in the rule of law.
This article is not only being sent around your campus, it has reached Canada.
This article is not funny. It refers to the hateful racial profiling that the Nazis used against the Jewish people, and then legitimizes it.
I do not accept the editor’s comment that it was “not intentionally offensive”, rather I would suggest that the writer was attempting to present his own racist views “under the radar” so to speak, in the guise of humour.
The editorial staff should resign.
I agree with Julie.
This article has reached Canda?!
I do not pretend this article was in good taste or funny for one second- but I think a few things should be pointed out:
The Newt is a newspaper run by New College undergraduates- not the college, so the college have not allowed any anti-semitic rhetoric.
The Newt is produced by and for an undergraduate body of 450, it did also go on the website which can obviously be accessed by anyone but it is an 8 page publication meant for a very specific group of people. I have certainly never heard of anyone reading The Newt in Canada before, and doubt they ever will again. The small scope of the paper becomes clear if you read the other articles. Of course this does not justify its contents, but perhaps it should be remembered that it is unlikely the author or editorial team though it would get read by people who did not know the author and editors. I doubt everyone complaining can claim never to of made a slightly sexist/ racist/ homophobic comment to a friend in jest.
Everyone is of course perfectly entitled to find the article offensive… but calling for resignations etc when the article did not break any laws is an over-reaction. Demands for resignation etc imply the criticisms have a stronger backing than they do. I think it is hard to contest that censorship is a dangerous road to go down, free speech is a human right. Fortunately or unfortunately, there is no legal provision for the right not to be offended.
Yes….Canada.
In response to “Student” who states that they “doubt everyone complaining can claim never to have made a slightly sexist/ racist/ homophobic comment to a friend in jest.”
While inappropriate, it is one thing to make such a comment in private.
However as a newspaper, whether for a student body of 450 or only 50; and which also posts on a website, the author and editors should know that racial stereotyping promotes hatred, is unethical and serves no purpose.
Plus once an article is on a website the “audience” is world wide.
Perhaps Mr. Anders should have thought of this….or maybe he did.
I don’t really want to be drawn into a debate on this as I think the issue is quite clear and how you feel about it is largely down to opinion- my opinion is that the article should be allowed.
However I would say that making suggestions that Mr Anders himself is racist, which Catherine has now done twice, is completely irresponsible. They are serious claims based upon no evidence and could prove incredibly damaging. He didn’t write the article and, whilst on the editorial team, is not the chief editor so ultimate decision to run the piece is unlikely to of been taken by him either. I respect you are allowed to write what you like (that’s kind of the point of my whole objection to your arguments) but I really don’t think throwing accusations you have no evidence for around is going to help anyone.
The idea that criticizing the editor(s) who published this article for their editorial judgment amounts to censorship does not stand up to scrutiny. I too believe that everyone should have a protected right to say whatever they want, provided that it does not directly lead to the harming of others (crying fire in a crowded theater, inciting riot, threatening someone’s life, e.g.–clearly that is not the situation we’re dealing with here). However, I do not believe that anyone has a right to publish these beliefs without having to face the consequences of that act. You are entitled to publish an article that I find offensive; I have the right to criticize you for it. And I have the right to call for your resignation. This is how we moderate discourse in a civilized society.
Equating this article with a slip of the tongue is also specious. A poorly conceived joke at a bar may indeed slip out; there may little recourse–the cat may be out of the bag. However, this article went through the stages of conception, execution, revision, editing, and publication. At any one of these stages, either the author or the editor(s) had the opportunity to reconsider his (or her) decision that this piece was worthy of publication.
The central ‘joke’ of the article–that Jews are cheap and the author is cheap, therefore the author loves Judaism–offers nothing new to the discourse. It merely rehashes an old stereotype for ostensibly rhetorical purposes. The article could have conveyed all the information it contained without once mentioning Jews or Judaism. Evidently not content merely to state the central joke, the author did explicitly refer to various insidious, slanderous defamations that have been made over the years against Jews. That’s not taking a joke a just a little too far.
To the Editor,
I think this apology is far from sufficient. The Editorial Board is clearly hiding behind the stock Oxford response “It was satirical but clearly some of our readership were offended”. The reason to apologise for this article is not that some of your readership were offended, but that your article is racist. This really isn’t a case where someone’s freedom to be witty has been impinged upon by the offended oversensitives, but where you have published a racist article. It is particularly worrying that the publishing of this article represents not only its author’s cluelessness, but the entire staff’s since it was actually published. Seriously, no one flagged this??
This article casually (and not with the sophistication that satire connotes) invokes racial stereotypes, and is written with the apparent assumption that the author and student body are all in on the joke. If you want satire that pushes the envelope, look at Sarah Silverman. She’s making fun of people like you. This is an astonishingly ugly article, that conveys ugly sentiments amd that demonstrates an absolute lack of consciousness that Jews are actual people, and not some fun literary trope to frame an article on cheapness. What next: “how to survive Oxford even though you’re stupid? Let’s ask a Black person? Hehehe…where so rebellious, we’re so against the PC brigade”. It’s difficult to even think of an analogy that might shock you into awareness, since your intuitions are clearly off.
And yes, if you were in any other part of the world, the editor would resign because he would actually get what a tremendous lack of judgment he had displayed, would be ashamed, and would realise that he is not qualified to edit a paper. In Oxford, of course, it’s just a lad who took a joke too far, and the humourless offended brigade that doesn’t get it.
I hope that for once, Oxford actually responds to the fact that it has allowed a culture of casual racism and elitism to flourish and will respond extremely harshly to the author and your. It is clear that the University must send a very clear signal out that this is simply not acceptable. Maybe then you would get it too.
Says AV: “”[The article] demonstrates an absolute lack of consciousness that Jews are actual people”.
Dear Lord! Of COURSE it doesn’t. The writer is well aware that Jews are real people; it would not occur to her to think otherwise. What a bizarre accusation. She mentions a Jewish friend (yes, FRIEND) in the article whose apparent knack for tracking down freebies becomes the basis of her admittedly-unfunny riff. This person was obviously entirely comfortable with his inclusion, knowing that the writer loves him dearly and is able to play with a stereotype precisely because no-one in the college has even a hint of such a prejudice in their outlook. Don’t you realise that this paper is circulated within a student body of only 400, all of whom know one another well? The reason the article was perceived as unproblematic within the college is that no-one is remotely anti-semitic. Call the article unsophisticated, by all means. I would probably agree with you. But to accuse the writer or editors of racism is bizarre. I can assure you that they are not.
I think the apology is exactly right in tone and gracefully given.