Now for something really shocking! By Matt Kapko and Matt Mais Outgoing Editors The Lumberjack May 5, 2004 The Humboldt State University administration and a fringe religious element in this county want you to believe that The ‘Jack has angered a significant portion of this community with its content. The truth of the matter is that our two features on oral sex are being perceived as a threat to this administration’s goals. With increased enrollment and appearances at the forefront of the bureaucrats’ minds, our “untimely” publication of material deemed sexual in nature during the week dedicated to open house for new students and their guardians ruffled the feathers right off their suits. By the way, preview week was never discussed among our editorial board during the planning of those two issues. After the second article about cunnilingus was published, The ‘Jack and HSU administration received a sizeable amount of negative feedback from residents and advertisers. HSU President Rollin Richmond personally responded to one of the emails coming in last week, effectively adding his own voice to the flux of protest. Richmond agreed with a rather misguided assessment by a McKinleyville pastor, wherein The ‘Jack was accused of publishing pornography in these two features. It’s subjective really, so judge for yourself; Webster’s defines pornography as: “writings, pictures, etc. intended to arouse sexual desire.” We do ask one thing: Please read the oral sex features before passing judgment on them. We wouldn’t want you to feel as awkward as Richmond must have felt when he admitted to The ’Jack on Monday afternoon that he still had not read the articles. Two top public relations handlers usually accompany Richmond when this paper interviews him, but this time he crossed paths with one of our editors in the hallway and offered this candid admission of ignorance on the issue unapologetically. This isn’t the first time Richmond has rendered his opinion on a matter without any of the facts. The most striking example of this came last semester when Richmond demoralized the many part-time instructors on this campus, when he told The ‘Jack they “don’t spend as much time on campus” or dedicate themselves as much as full-time faculty. Hence, they are “not as good as full-time faculty,” he said. That was a slam to many excellent teachers at HSU. He later apologized and claimed he was given bad information. It should be noted that even an editor among us — who’s grown distaste for the oral sex features although he sat idly by while they were assigned — admits to not having read them. We’re curious how many others have not read the material they find so disgusting in The ‘Jack. Maybe these people were just set off by the pair of legs in the air, or the photo of two women canoodling a dildo named Junior. Neither of these feature articles border on any widely accepted definition of pornography. The first feature on fellatio set out to inform readers about a workshop being held for and by women to empower themselves to feel more comfortable and able to communicate their desires (not only sexual). The second feature on cunnilingus was an attempt to emulate that aim and provide information for those who desire better technique and understanding of oral sex on women. We remind you that the ethics of journalism are much different than those that dominate religion. This is true no matter how much Christian thought is taught in our pathetic media ethics class here at HSU. We don’t merit these two oral sex write-ups on their scale of news value. Those issues were filled with other informative news stories. The oral sex features were nothing more than a pair of quirky contributions in our features section. Those who are criticizing these features as debase and “jaded appetites, arid passions, arrested development, banality and sordidness” are motivated by religious ideology. What other conclusion can we come to when so much of the backlash is filled with talk of values and moral judgment? Sex is still taboo in this culture, especially oral sex. Those who’ve come out against us are mostly upset that sex wasn’t written about in an emotional context. Sex isn’t exclusive or dependent on love. People have sex for many different reasons. We don’t think it’s our role to place a high value on it. We fear the religious backlash that would have ensued if the features hadn’t taken such a heterosexist angle on oral sex. In retrospect, we think that was a mistake. The recent reaction and disdain for The ‘Jack is rather insignificant in the scheme of things. The complaints and boycott threats being levied against our advertisers are not coming from altruistic, middle-of-the-road folks. Based largely on these two features, a squad of fundamentalist Christians, calling themselves a “group of concerned Christians,” has taken on the task of taking down The Lumberjack. One advertiser was phoned by someone claiming to be a customer. He said it was obvious that the caller was an extremist, and he doubted it was really one of his customers. In fact, the advertiser informed us that the caller was persuaded by his pastor to threaten a boycott of all ‘Jack advertisers. All of a sudden we’re being told that 8-year-olds read this paper, and that parents no longer feel safe leaving this rag on their coffee table. Is it really that big of a surprise that The ‘Jack has no fans in the fundamentalist Christian camp? And moreover, did the advertisers expect to reach that audience in the pages of The ‘Jack of all places? Four advertisers seemingly did. They jumped ship last week after a series of phone calls from this group. They include Vintage Avenger, Renner Petroleum, California State Federal Credit Union, and Humboldt Audio and Video. Only 16 percent of The Lumberjack’s operating costs are subsidized by HSU. The ad staff generates the rest. It’s worth mentioning that these features are among our highest read of the semester and they’ve generated also the most positive feedback of the year. This all is the first semester with a features section in the ‘Jack. In our opinion, what lies at the heart of the matter for the administration is the appearance and general compatibility of HSU to as many prospective students as possible. Since his hiring two years ago, most of Richmond’s efforts have been focused on dramatically increasing enrollment at HSU. As this final semester of ours closes, we fear the worst. HSU is in dire straits and ill prepared for more students. More classes are being cut each semester, forcing students to wait around, while the faculty-to-student ratio consistently rises. The administration is dumping millions of dollars into ridiculous ventures like the Field House upgrade, the Behavioral and Social Sciences building and the constant remodeling of the Student and Business Services building. The needs of HSU’s current student body are not being met. Does the administration really expect us to jump with glee at the idea of even more students and fewer resources? Home