TARANTO V. RAWITCH
The Rooster Papers
A student's journalistic feathers are plucked.
The Quill (Society of Professional Journalists), September 1988
INTRODUCTION BY MIKE MOORE, editor of The Quill
One of the oddities of life is how elegantly simple the Great Principles are when stated abstractly, and how messy things often become when the Great Principles are invoked to govern everyday behavior.
On these pages, The Quill presents a very fine mess, indeed.
In one corner are the men and women who teach journalism at California State University, Northridge. They are champions of free speech, and they are also, as they must be, partisans of a reasonably orderly pedagogical process.
In another corner is James Taranto, a journalism student at CSUN, and a writer for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington D.C. Taranto, too, is a champion of free speech.
And in the middle is the grand old principle of freedom of expression, a thing that is usually said to be much valued around newspaper offices.
The skirmish between Taranto and his presumptive mentors at CSUN began with the rooster cartoon panel you see here, a panel so mindless that it redefines the adjective "sophomoric."
The tale of the rooster is a complicated one, and this introduction is designed to serve as a guide that will help you through the next few pages.
In [February] 1987, the Daily Bruin, the campus paper at the University of California at Los Angeles, printed the rooster panel. The cartoon created a stir at UCLA, and the Bruin got in trouble for running it.
Taranto, who was then news editor of the Daily Sundial at CSUN as well as one of two opinion-page editors, wrote an essay defending the right of the Bruin to print the cartoon. (The essay begins overleaf.) Taranto's essay appeared on the Daily Sundial's opinion page. . . .
Taranto also reprinted the rooster cartoon on the opinion page, as well as a sidebar consisting of an excerpt from an article that appeared in Nommo, UCLA's black student paper.
The opinion page, or at least the way it was put together, was not well received by everyone. Cynthia Z. Rawitch, a professor of journalism at CSUN and publisher of the Daily Sundial, placed Taranto on a two-week suspension, without pay.
Taranto was not pleased by the suspension. He claimed that he had been suspended because he was a conservative, and conservative points of view were not, and are not, palatable to the journalism faculty at CSUN. In particular, he alleged that Rawitch had been outraged by the cartoon.
Not true, replied Michael C. Emery, chairman of the Department of Journalism, which backed Rawitch. The content of the opinion page, including the reprint of the cartoon, had had nothing to do with the suspension.
Rawitch had acted properly, Emery said. The Daily Sundial is not an independent entity, he noted, like, for instance, The Minnesota Daily at the University of Minnesota. Nor is the Sundial an open forum for student opinion. It is an academic component of the Journalism Department's program. The department publishes the Daily Sundial, and the students who produce the Sundial receive grades and academic credit.
Taranto was suspended for procedural reasons, said Emery. The opinion page of the March 5 Sundial had been put together in the evening, after Rawitch had left for the day. Emery said that Taranto had failed to notify Publisher Rawitch, as required that controversial editorial matter--a cartoon that had caused a ruckus at nearby UCLA--was in the hopper.
Emery said that the paper operated according to written guidelines. A section of the guidelines that describes the duties of the editor-in-chief of the Daily Sundial states:
"The editor shall keep the newspaper free from any expressions that violate the laws of libel, privacy, obscenity and/or sedition or violate the best newspaper standards of good taste and ethics. In meeting this obligation, the editor shall call to the attention of the publisher and key editorial assistants any questionable material."
Taranto, not satisfied with the explanation that he had been suspended merely because he had violated proper guidelines, followed a campus grievance procedure. His appeal was rejected.
Taranto then consulted the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, and last May, the ACLU chapter filed suit in a Los Angeles state court in Taranto's behalf. The suit names Rawitch, Emery, and other faculty members of the Department of Journalism as defendants, as well as trustees of the California State University system and the State of California.
The ACLU asks that Taranto be awarded $93 in lost wages, and such punitive damages as can be proven at trial.
The suit also alleges that, contrary to the position of the journalism faculty, the Daily Sundial "is a public forum for student expression and communication." Therefore, the section of the Daily Sundial policy quoted above violates the rights of free speech and freedom of the press as guaranteed by the constitution of the State of California and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Finally, the suit asks that the court grant an injunction restraining the university from enforcing any policy that would require students at CSUN to submit material to any faculty member of other agent of CSUN for approval prior to publication.
A fine mess, yes. A classic tempest in a teapot. Another who-cares? academic imbroglio. And yet, one never knows these days which dust-devil of a dispute may gain enough energy over the years to eventually "make law."
In May 1983, when Robert Reynolds, principal at Hazelwood East High School near St. Louis, pulled a couple of sensitive stories from the school newspaper, he presumably did not suppose that his action would someday be alchemized into Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, a decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court last January.
Hazelwood seemed to establish that high school principals and their agents have a right to censor "expressive" material written for high school publications--if the publications are in some way supported by the school, and if the censorship is "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concern," and if the publication has not been defined as a "public forum."
The court's decision was concerned with censorship in high schools, not colleges and universities. Indeed, the decision contained language that seemed to leave intact a long-building body of case law that supports free-expression at the college and university level.
Despite the fact that Hazelwood was expressly concerned with censorship in high school, Hazelwood and James Taranto v. nearly everyone have a certain resonance. Any good newspaper, whether it's a high school, college, or real-world operation, ought to be a place of editorial tension.
Reporters and editors need to push and test the boundaries of what can be done. Publishers have to push back; they have to make sure the operation remains a going concern. Newspapers of quality have to have procedures that govern how they operate. Otherwise, a newspaper might well become the sort of anarchic sheet that typified the "underground" press of the '70s.
In the CSUN case, one could reasonably entertain the suspicion that Taranto was generally right about what happened to him, that he was disciplined for being intemperately conservative in a world in which affirmative action is a sacred cow.
But one could just as easily entertain the notion that Taranto was a hard-to-work-with ideological hardhead, the sort of guy who makes it difficult to get a paper out. In short, a walking-talking discipline problem.
But even if the latter point is on-target, the question becomes: What's wrong with having a few ideological hardheads around? If John Stuart Mill was right, the industry needs them.
Who said what and why in the CSUN incident is a matter that is now, as the narrator on Dragnet used to say, in the hands of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. No hearing date has been set.
Meanwhile, though, The Quill cut a deal of sorts with Taranto and Emery. (Taranto for obvious reasons; Emery, because he is chairman of the Journalism Department and has been a spokesman regarding the incident.)
The Quill's editor proposed that The Quill print Taranto's original essay and the offending cartoon, and then Taranto and Emery would write short pieces focusing on the journalistic issues involved in the case rather than on the legal issues.
Even though Taranto and Emery are involved in litigation, they agreed to write the essays, and The Quill thanks them. It's rare that people who are tied up on our judicial system agree to speak for the record.
Taranto and the Journalism Department at CSUN have a mess on their hands, all right. But perhaps it's not that much different from the sorts of tensions and conflicts that other student journalists and faculty publishers find themselves embroiled in from time to time.
College and university journalism is important. The nation's next generation of journalists is in school now, or will be soon.
We at The Quill would like to hear form our campus readers, students and faculty. We'd like to get reports from the trenches about how things really are, not how they are supposed to be. Meanwhile, enjoy the Rooster Papers.
At UCLA, 'Sensitivity' Means Violence and Censorship
BY JAMES TARANTO
(This article originally appeared in the Daily Sundial, March 5, 1987.)
A group of thugs storm into a newspaper editor's office. Angry because the paper has run material critical of the government's racial policy, they spend half an hour yelling and pointing fingers at him, refusing to let him use the phone, even threatening his life.
The next day, an official panel convenes to consider punishment for the editor. He is suspended from his job.
Another horror story from South Africa? No. It happened at UCLA.
The conflict revolved around a comic strip that appeared in the school paper, the Daily Bruin. Titled "UC Rooster," the strip had run several times before and was utterly inoffensive and apolitical. This particular installment, however, depicted the rooster telling another student that he had been admitted to UCLA through an affirmative action program.
This raised the ire of UCLA's "special interest groups"--minority organizations--who roundly condemned the cartoon as "racially insensitive." Some said it portrayed minority students as animals.
Editor Ron Bell says a group of eight students entered his office on the day the cartoon ran, blocked his door and refused to let him answer the phone. Bell says one of the students told him, "I should do to you what they do to roosters. Do you know what they do to roosters?"
The next day the Associated Students Communications Board, which oversees UCLA's student publications, met. It was, in the word of Comm Board Chair Joan Zyda, a "tension-filled meeting," with about 40 special interest group members expressing outrage over the cartoon, and board members pressing for action. Several students made what could be construed as threats of violence: "If you don't want us to act, I suggest you act," said Cheryl Turner, vice-chair of the Black Student Alliance.
The board, on the basis of a policy prohibiting "articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or ethnic stereotypes," voted unanimously to censure the Bruin, and 5-3 to suspend Bell and Art Director Brian Fujimori.
The Bruin ran an apology the next day, saying that the cartoon was "blatantly insensitive" and violated the rule on stereotypes.
As it turned out, the board did not follow its proper procedures in suspending Bell and Fujimori, and cooler heads prevailed. The suspensions were revoked the next day.
Again there was talk of violence. Dannette Martin, also of the BSA, said, "You're asking minority students to take the issue into their own hands and burn down the Bruin or something."
At present the situation remains unresolved. The Comm Board meets again tonight to consider action against Bell. This time, board members assure, the rules will be followed. But the episode raises questions far beyond board procedures.
Begin with the cartoon itself. It is by no means clear that the cartoon did violate the board's rule on ethnic stereotypes. It made no mention of any ethnic group, and roosters are not stereotypically associated with any group.
At least two alternate interpretations of the cartoon suggest themselves immediately: it could have been simply a silly joke about a rooster or it could have been a political comment about affirmative action policies.
It was, in fact, interpreted as political commentary by many of the protesters. Lisa Smith, editor of Nommo, UCLA's black student newspaper, circulated a letter which was endorsed by all of the special interest groups, in which she condemned the "atrociously destructive ideas in the context of humor" expressed by the cartoon.
In a Nommo editorial, she elaborated: "At a time when affirmative action is under attack across the country the cartoon . . . further undermines the effort to preserve a much needed program."
This is particularly disturbing, for, though board members say they only punished the Bruin for violating the rule on ethnic stereotypes, it is clear that the rule was used by many of the protesters in an effort to stifle dissent about the issue of affirmative action.
It would not be so bad if the rule barring derogatory stereotypes were applied evenhandedly. The rule applies to all six of UCLA's student publications, including Nommo. Nommo is not exactly a middle-of-the-road paper: its contents range from the politically extreme (blasting the African National Congress for being too soft on white South Africans) to the just plain silly (criticizing blacks who wear blue contact lenses for "looking through the eyes of the oppressor").
Most of Nommo's content arguably falls within the rule on stereotypes. But the paper reportedly has a history of anti-Semitism under previous editors, and it still prints some articles consisting of hate-mongering racist filth, including one diatribe in the current issue that makes repeated reference to whites as inherently greedy and incapable of rational thought. (See box for more extensive excerpts.)
If there seems to be a double-standard here, it is because there is, in fact, no standard at all. When presented with the Nommo article, Comm Board member Jane Engle said she didn't know how the rule was meant to be applied and whether it would apply to this article.
The question has never officially been considered because no grievance has been filed against Nommo. By definition, then, the article isn't "insensitive" since apparently no one is bothered by it.
That is the problem with an idea like "racial sensitivity": it is entirely self-defining. If material hurts the feelings of a minority member, it is insensitive. Some people would even twist the very idea of racism to the point that it is self-defining. Racism is everywhere, they say, "just beneath the surface" (under every bed?).
If racism is "beneath the surface," where we can't see it, no objective standards can be applied to the problem--and a racist is anyone whose actions are blamed for hysteria on the part of minority members. If racist material is to be suppressed, then, hysteria becomes a license to act as a censor. This smacks of totalitarianism.
UCLA is by no means alone. The battle between "sensitivity" and free expression is being waged on college campuses throughout the country. At Yale, for example, a student placed a poster on his dormitory door advertising a debate on the resolution "Resolved: CIA discrimination against homosexuals is justified." A student from the Gay-Straight-Lesbian Coalition was offended by the poster and filed sexual harassment charges with the university. The student who advertised the debate was kicked off campus and denied the right to participate in graduation ceremonies.
It is particularly offensive that this sort of thing happens at universities. Eliminating discrimination is a noble goal, but it is not the primary purpose of a university. A university exists to promote the search for truth, and censorship is always detrimental to that search.
Moreover, universities that censure those who are deemed "insensitive" also often condone violence on the part of those who aren't. There has been no talk of any action against the UCLA students who threatened violence over the cartoon. And at Yale, a group of students participating in an anti-apartheid protest were given only verbal reprimands for taking over school property and physically preventing school employees from entering.
Censorship and violence are the greatest threats to truth and freedom. A university that condones either has betrayed its basic purpose. And a student who responds to opposing views with either does not belong at a university.
Rooster's Goose Is Cooked--but This Is OK
The following are excerpts from an article which appeared in Nommo, UCLA's black student newspaper. The article, titled "Black Man, You're On Your Own," was written by contributing writer Nkuli Lind.
We have been subjected to one of the most grotesque and obscene treatments ever recorded in the history of humankind.
Consequently, we have to wonder why so many Black people in this country do not recognize this fact and continue to prance around as if they're just like the average white boy who hasn't a care in the world. . . .
What I have found to be the number one problem facing our people is this almost sadistic love affair we have with our enemy. America and the Western world is actually only the European's (white's) system of robbery and slavery. . . .
They are tricksters who would have us believe that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, and that Blacks should be grateful to this supposed "great white hope" for his generosity. . . .
We must wonder what kind of aggressive psychosis impels the Europeans to oppress. The events of South Africa, Nicaragua, Palestine and countless other countries, including the U.S., are taking place all for the same reason.
The struggles and violence in these areas and many more spring from one source, the possessive and greedy Europeans.
They suffer under the mistaken belief that a man can secure himself in an insecure world best by ownership of great personal, private wealth.
Their abstract theories and philosophy concerning government and economics has an underlying tone of selfishness, possessiveness and greediness because their character is made up of these things.
They cannot see the merit in collectivism and socialism because they do not possess the qualities of rational thought, generosity and magnanimity necessary to be part of a social order or system. . . .
We must come to the realization that we can no longer appeal to the moral consciousness of America because she has none. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. died trying to change the hearts of men who have none.
(Click here to return to Taranto's Sundial story.)
Competent . . . but Unprofessional?
BY JAMES TARANTO
When I was interviewing him for the Daily Sundial article, I proudly told Ron Bell, then editor-in-chief of the Daily Bruin at UCLA: "This sort of thing would never happen at Cal State, Northridge. Our student newspaper isn't overseen by student politicians but by professional journalists who understand the importance of the free flow of ideas."
But when I printed my article on the Sundial's opinion page, it outraged Cynthia Rawitch, the faculty adviser.
Rawitch called an emergency meeting of all the paper's editors. She angrily announced that I had violated a policy requiring that all "controversial" material be submitted to her for prepublication review.
The policy had never before been enforced, though she once excised a cartoon parodying the university president because she thought it might be libelous. So odious was my misdeed, however, that it called for quick and harsh retribution; without a hearing, she suspended me without pay from my editorial position for two weeks.
The next day, Rawitch released a letter to the media explaining her action. "We would be negligent if we did not teach our students professional standards of responsibility," she wrote. I was still puzzled. I agree wholeheartedly that journalism professors should teach professional standards, but she never told me which one I'd transgressed. It's been a year and a half now, and I still haven't the foggiest idea.
According to Rawitch's letter, my crime was that I had written about "controversial matters that could affect the legal standing or reputation of the newspaper." She did not claim that I had violated any law.
I recently showed my article to Brad Miller, a colleague of mine at the Heritage Foundation and a former editorial writer and columnist for The Dallas Morning News. Do you see anything here, I asked him, that would affect the reputation of a college newspaper that published it?
"Well, a college paper that published material of this quality might gain a reputation as a breeding ground for outstanding young writers, which, for some reason, is a reputation few seem to seek," he said.
I didn't think that was what Rawitch had in mind, so I explained to Miller what had happened.
"It sounds to me like your teachers just didn't like your politics and wanted to shut you up," he replied.
It had sounded like that to me, too. Rawitch had made it abundantly clear that she disagreed with my views. She argued, for example, that the cartoon was properly censored at UCLA because affirmative action applies only to minorities and women, while explicitly racist attacks against whites were OK, because "white people are not an ethnic or cultural group." I confess this logic is too subtle for me.
All the evidence suggests I was punished not for offending professional standards but for holding political views unacceptable to Rawitch and her colleagues. Michael Emery, the chairman of the journalism department, told me he had found my article "journalistically competent." I fail to see how I can be simultaneously "competent" and "unprofessional."
Perhaps a reader of The Quill can help me solve the mystery of what professional standard I violated. Otherwise, I must assume myself innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, in early May, the ACLU filed suit on my behalf arguing violation of my constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech.
Meanwhile, my suspension has proved quite effective at deterring controversy in the pages of the Sundial. A recent opinion page, for example, featured articles titled "Cat owner describes felines as purrfect pets" and "Viewer prefers to switch channel on PBS pledge drive." Another led with an essay called "Restroom mess; students must learn to flush," and one issue of the paper devoted a full page to a student survey on the pressing question: "If you were a tree, what kind would you be?"
And what of professional standards of responsibility? One day last spring the Sundial ran a long, in-depth article on free-press conflicts at Cal State campuses. The article centered on a controversy at Cal State, Los Angeles, which, though it has not resulted in any litigation, was also the subject of several front-page news stories in the Sundial. The in-depth article cited conflicts at several other campuses, but omitted any mention of my case.
When I filed my lawsuit in May, the Sundial gave the story page four coverage and headlined it: "Former editor files legal action against Sundial, alleges censorship." But the Sundial is not a defendant in my suit, which names Rawitch, her superiors, the Cal State University Board of Trustees, and the State of California.
I know that playing down inconvenient stories and misidentifying the parties to a lawsuit are unprofessional, because the Daily Sundial "General Policies" statement says so. "Errors of fact, inadvertent slanting or distortion of the news or incomplete reporting damage [sic] the credibility of the entire paper," says the statement, prepared by the journalism faculty.
The CSUN faculty should spent more time teaching such important lessons and less trying to stifle controversy.
Censorship No, Discipline Yes
BY MICHAEL EMERY
We all know that many significant court decisions have been based on odd situations--unlikely and even strange happenings tinged with irony. Nevertheless, there they are, enshrined forever, or at least until overturned.
You shake your head at times and wonder, "Isn't it odd that fate ordained that those people end up in court--for that?" Well, this is one way to view the Northridge case. It's enough to make you want to say, like the kids, "Give me a break!" The ACLU versus CSUN's Department of Journalism?
After all, if you check the bibliographies, you will find that quite a bit of First Amendment history and analysis has been turned out by CSUN faculty over the years. Ken Devol's book on the Warren Court, the offerings in Journalism History of editors Susan Henry and Tom Reilly, and the consistent defense of our traditions found in The Press and America (of which I am a co-author) reflect the attitudes demonstrated here since the place opened in 1958.
And if you check the records for a period in the mid-'70s, when the Journalism Department was asked by the CSUN administration to reorganize a deteriorating campus newspaper operation, you will discover that a prime concern was how to maintain student press freedoms.
And if you knew Cynthia Rawitch, the Daily Sundial's publisher for the past five years, you would realize that to accuse her of censorship and intimidation is like charging Mother Teresa with smuggling cocaine. Of all the charges that have been flying around, the accusation against Rawitch is the most ridiculous, and a flock of former Sundial editors and staffers are ready to say so on the stand.
Taranto's fellow opinion-page editor, Tad Cronn, even wrote a long review of the incident for the May 11, 1988 Sundial, criticizing Taranto's behavior.
Regarding Taranto's allegation that the faculty has "chilled" the conservative viewpoint at the Sundial, please let me confess that our "lock-step censorship system" has failed. In recent months, contributors to the opinion page have relegated women to an eternity of second-class status, argued against the rights of the elderly, and engaged in what some might call "gay-bashing." (You might recall that last one, James, because you wrote it.)
We've also had many pro-and-con presentations, and in the fall of 1987, we recruited Mark Hudak, a campus conservative, to write 20 pieces for us. He is expected back for the fall 1988 term.
But as we well know, courts do not necessarily look for a good track record, or a good attitude, although such a record might help. The court's decision probably will turn on a definition of a word or on the discovery of some obscure precedent.
Actually there is another twist here that most persons who have read about the case can't really appreciate because they don't know all the facts. We at CSUN are contending that this is not a First Amendment case. Rather, we assert that this is merely a discipline matter between Taranto and his teacher. That's an issue that will have to be explored in court rather than in The Quill.
For the record, Taranto says that if Taranto had called that night, she most likely would have simply urged him to carefully identify the source of the rooster cartoon, perhaps by boxing it.
As for Taranto's claim that she supported the UCLA action against the UCLA editor, she says that she was only trying to define federal affirmation action definitions for Taranto.
The real irony of this case is that if it were not for Rawitch's outspoken defense of student press freedoms and for her willingness to let students grow under newsroom pressures, Taranto would not have been in a position to carry out his mission that particular evening.
Indeed, earlier in the term following another newsroom incident, Rawitch decided--as a sensitive teacher of a class as well as the tough publisher of a newspaper--that Taranto should be allowed to keep his position as news editor. This was consistent with her style. In 1986, she had been named the California Newspaper Publishers Association's Outstanding Journalism Educator at a four-year school.
(Sidelight: A longtime SPJ,SDX [Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi, publisher of The Quill] member, Rawitch loyally displays the famous "Journalists Do It Daily: Support the First Amendment" bumper sticker for all to see on her old station wagon.)
Here's another oddity for you. A few years ago the Sundial defied the university and refused to turn over photos of an incident that led to allegations of police brutality involving campus police officers. Instead of being "an organ of the university," managed by an "agent" of the state--as alleged in the suit--the Sundial proved in that incident to be a fiercely independent organization.
And, for the record, before the issue becomes further blurred, what about the possibility that the American Civil Liberties Union has, by filing suit, unwittingly assisted in an attack on the academic freedom of Rawitch and others in the Department of Journalism who are responsible for maintaining the Sundial "class"?
One reason for confusion about this case is that many campus papers are independent of their schools' journalism departments and are run off-campus or by boards of publications. But a number of award-winning papers, including the Sundial (General Excellence, SPJ,SDX Region 11, 1988) are in the so-called "laboratory newspaper" category.
That means that someone in the department represents the faculty as the first line of defense against libel and maintains professional standards, including standards of behavior. They do this by force of personality, general enforcement of written codes, or by checking all copy at night (something that we never have done at CSUN).
Students who put out the Sundial receive academic credit and they are graded on their work. And they are expected to follow a set of guidelines, including the provision that required Taranto to consult with Rawitch prior to the publication of the cartoon.
As far as we are concerned, the content of his article has nothing to do with this case.
The use of the word "censorship" in the lawsuit is inappropriate, because it is impossible for publishers and editors to "censor." That's something outsiders try to do. But all publishers and editors "consult," "edit," "delay publication," and so on. To completely turn over our lab paper to students--as the ACLU asks--without being allowed to have any legal or professional rules and regulations would be irresponsible.
Our style in the Department of Journalism is to encourage maximum student responsibility. One evening I was in the newsroom following a suicide--a student had jumped off a tower and we had several after-the-fact photographs. The students were arguing over which one to use--one was more graphic--and finally they called Rawitch for advice.
Rawitch obtained the opinions of several persons. She gave the students the pros and cons and told them to use their best judgment. Following the pattern of most editors--to the chagrin of press critics--the students opted for the more tantalizing photo, showing the path of the jump. But they learned a lot in making this decision. And that's why we have taken the pains of having the Daily Sundial in our department.
It does little good to debate the wording of the clause in our policy statement requiring students to consult with the publisher in certain situations. That debate will occur in court. It also does little good to state that this is not a "content" case and that the core of Taranto's case is misleading. Taranto says he was, in effect, censored; we say his suspension, a slap on the wrist, was related to a violation of a rule.
Confused now? Good--because so is everyone else.
In May 1989, just weeks before scheduled trial in the case of Taranto v. Rawitch, Emery, Rawitch and the other defendants agreed to settle the case by awarding Taranto $93 in back pay, removing any reference to the suspension from his academic record, and rewriting the Sundial's policy statement to make clear that the paper is a public forum for student expression.
On May 16 Taranto held a press conference at the ACLU's Washington office to announce the settlement. In attendance were the ACLU's Morton Halperin and former attorney general Edwin Meese, who had once called the ACLU a "criminals lobby" but found common ground with the group on this issue.
Taranto went on to a (thus far) successful career in journalism. In 1996 he joined the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal as an editor of op-ed pieces. Four years later he helped design the page's popular Web site, OpinionJournal.com, of which he is editor. Rawitch eventually became chairman of the CSUN journalism department and later an associate dean and vice provost. She announced her retirement in February 2013. Emery, sad to report, died of cancer in 1995. He was 55. "[An] olive branch and a bowl containing the soil of Palestine were buried with his ashes," reported the pro-Arab Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
Next article: College Campuses Crawling With Crazies (New York City Tribune, 7/13/90)
Go to main list