"Dear Editor," the note began, "after reading 'Bush Country'
in which R. Bruce Dold spent several pages licking George Bush's
shoes, I have lost all respect for your magazine. Please cancel
my subscription."
"Please cancel my subscription," said the second. "I cannot
recall perusing such a steady diet of trivia in the face of the
criminal behavior of our country in the slaughter of Iraq."
"Now that Notre Dame has joined the ranks of Christian Fundamentalism,"
read the third, "I prefer not to be associated any longer."
Canceling a "subscription" seems like an extreme reaction to
me, especially when based on a single article and when the publication
is free. But it happens. We
lost a few readers awhile back when we carried a faculty member's
critique of the Bush administration's preemptive strike against
Iraq; now we've lost a few more because of a piece defending Bush's
re-election. People take their politics and religion seriously,
and we offer some serious analysis on important issues.
I'm always disappointed
when someone turns a back on the magazine. I think of all the
good stuff they'll miss because they got peeved about something
someone wrote. I also question what it says about what they've
taken from this place -- the value of education, learning, dialogue,
the give and take of intellectual inquiry and adherence to moral
principles. This is not easy terrain to cross while keeping 150,000
readers in lockstep. Nor would we want to.
Sometimes people
are mad because "both sides" are not found in the same issue.
Sometimes both are. Not long ago we ran four pieces on the Iraq
war, all by Notre Dame people -- two by military personnel, one
by a priest and peace activist, and one by the survivor of the
bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad. Before that we held
off publishing a piece on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for
more than a year until we had a counterpoint to it. But mainly
we think balance can be found over time. In between those articles
on the Bush preemptive strike strategy and the Bush election piece
(and after we carried the four views on one war), we ran a story
by an alumnus proud of his son's military service but opposed
to his being in Iraq.
We like to think
we offer space to competing voices and are disappointed when people
choose to stop listening.
In many ways, the
magazine is a reflection of the University. There is room for
disagreement, even heated disagreement, but also an understanding
of the importance of that conversation and the principles, values,
truths and beliefs that deserve a committed and well-reasoned
airing.
On many issues there
is no single official University position; it would, in fact,
seem odd, even disheartening, to find unanimity on a college campus.
So people will be disappointed who write asking, "Is this how
the University feels?" The views expressed on these pages, again,
reflect the educational enterprise. We bring together members
of the Notre Dame family, invite into the discussion some "guest
speakers" and "visiting faculty," and live with the rustle, bang
and pulse of a Catholic institution engaged in the wider world
and trying to figure out how to make a difference there. No reason
to foreclose on that.
(July 2005)
