Lest censorship history be forgotten

Samer Mazloum

November 2003

BEIRUT -When I first approached editors of this publication to write a piece on Outlook as a reaction to AUB’s newspaper first editorial, they told me they would get back to me. They never did. When I heard AUB president John Waterbury citing an Outlook issue dating to 2000, which highlighted cheating in the university, I felt I should write about how Outlook’s role has been going down the drain.

I then decided to play some tricks on my editors, something that is up every reporter’s sleeve: I told them I would write a piece on all kinds of student publications. I then delayed the submission of my article until the last minute of the deadline, forcing them to accept the fait accompli with an article that pounded Outlook and the administration behind it hard. My editors apprehended me.

When a former associate editor from Outlook, whose letter you can read on this page, wrote to the editor saying that there was no “substantial censorship,” that she could not remember any “article (that) was not published,” asking that the write provide an instance that he had in mind, the editor instantly sent me the letter with a note in its bottom: do what you have to do.

I called the editor and asked him about the sudden change in position, he said: “I was there, if your research wasn’t enough to cite some instances of censorship, I’ll give you ones.”

Trying to play smart, the former associate editor said that there was not “substantial censorship.” In other words, there was censorship, but this censorship was not substantial. In fall 2002, the administration (president, provost, dean of students) summoned the whole editorial board to a meeting: “Mr. X cannot write anymore. Even though he is registered as a student, he does not have a student spirit,” the administrators said. The former associate editor, who later became acting editor, supported the “spiritual argument.”

For those of you who are not familiar with the Outlook mechanism, ask any former Outlookist and he or she would tell you that a pre-press copy goes to the faculty advisor and responsible director for final clearance before print. The issue does not go to print without their joint approval.

In its heyday after its revival in 1996, Outlook was a pain in the neck for the administration. It ran pieces on favoritism in faculty promotions, classified reports prepared by foreign academics and inside information. Barely a week passed without a senior administrator summoning the editors, apprehending them and ordering them to kill the story “or else it won’t be published.”

The climax of this clash came in spring of 2001 when Outlook ran a political party debate and printed it. Negotiations to make the administration retrieve its censorship position failed and led to Outlook circulated with a torn out page. Student anti-censorship escalation then followed.

Of course several student factions and the administration envied a strong central editorial leadership. A description was then given to this leadership: a clique.

When reviewing Outlook archives prior to May 2001, I discovered that there was a heated debate between Outlook writes themselves on Outlook pages. A group of writers praised women veil, another writer replied to them. A writer wrote about the market’s barrier to entry, another columnist spoke out against the republics of banana. The team seem to had been as diversified as ever and intellectual and political debate was at its height with leftists, rightists, Islamists and others writing. This continued until the former associate editor took over and turned the newspaper into a poetry club, where students debate the differences between men and deodorant, or that between animal and student rights.

Telling from its news, Outllook seem to have covered all news of clubs and political parties (in a separate supplement) prior to 2002.

This said, I do not see what would be the importance of an Arabic supplement in Outlook. If students want to express themselves in Arabic, let them set up their own newspaper. And why Arabic? What about French, or by the same token, Spanish? What about biology writers and IT writers? Does everything have to be in Outllook or can’t students open several news papers in different languages and themes like in American universities worldwide?

Finally, I would love to learn about the true reasons behind the disappearance of Outlook for more than a month when the former associate editor became interim editor? What happened? Who stopped Outlook? Was it the University Student Faculty Committee or the administration? Or was it a disagreement between both?

My last question on this issue: Why did the former associate editor defend this year’s first editorial and apply it to last year’s supposed policy? Even if we assume that last year there was freedom in Outlook, this year it changed, at least judging by the words of its new editor.

On journalistic professionalism: I took the first editorial (the first point of view) and made former editors (the second point of view) comment on it. The list goes on, but I believe this time I am running out of luck with my editors.

Samer Mazloum is a Beirut-based reporter of Alternative