We missed Lauren Duca’s summer course at New York University, “The Feminist Journalist,” in which she hoped to teach students to do away with the “mental Napalm that I call ‘both sides-ism’ — a kind of classic ‘he said, she said’ form of journalism where the reporter tries to give both sides of an issue, even if one side is completely bogus.”

“You’ll also hear it referred to as ‘balance'” she said in her course description, with “balance” being a bad thing. It’s something we’ve read more and more about ever since President Trump’s inauguration; there’s only the right side, and all others should be “de-platformed.”

Students at Harvard seem to share a similar viewpoint; they’re outraged that the student newspaper, The Crimson, would seek comment from ICE in a story about an abolish ICE protest.

Oh no! ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment! Burn down the newspaper office!

Trending

Ruoqi Zhang writes:

The petition — started by student-led immigration advocacy group Act on a Dream earlier this month — criticizes The Crimson for requesting comment from an ICE spokesperson for its Sept. 13 article, “Harvard Affiliates Rally for Abolish ICE Movement.” The article covers a Sept. 12 protest hosted by Act on a Dream and quotes several students’ criticisms of ICE, including calls for its dissolution. The article notes that ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“In this political climate, a request for comment is virtually the same as tipping [ICE] off, regardless of how they are contacted,” the petition reads. “The Crimson, as a student-run publication, has a responsibility to prioritize the safety of the student body they are reporting on — they must reexamine and interrogate policies that place students under threat.”

“A request for comment is virtually the same as tipping ICE off?” Really?

Related:

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Tags: abolishanti-ICE rallyboth sidesCrimsonHarvardICEpetitionprotest