Is it "the enemy within," or just "the immature on paper?"

I may be becoming one of those grumpy alums students can't stand...if so, sorry.

OK, full disclosure: I am a former editor (2 and a half years) of the ancestor of the Cedars, C.U.'s student newspaper, back in the late '70s. We were not censored by the University during those days, but expected to censor ourselves. We tried to keep news as news, and offer opinion on an opinion page--we offered lots of opinions, too. We also saw our job to be that of being journalists with a Christian worldview (the concept was popular back then, starting with Dr. Allen Monroe in fall quarter's Foundations of Social Science). Thus, we tried to tell truth, and subject opinion to the "grid" or "lens" of truth. We hated the historic name we were stuck with (does Whispering Cedars sound like hard-hitting journalism to you?)During my years, I am sure that we published our share of rants and less than Pulitzer-quality news stories. The headline "Student Discovers 'Worm Like Object' In Food" still haunts me (I was holding out for "Maggots in the Meat!" but I lost to my co-editor).

That said, I have been increasingly disappointed by what seems to be a lack of biblical foundation in some of the opinion (and yes, some of the "news," too) stories I've seen in the Cedars the past 2 years I've been in town. Weak writing I can expect--people are learning. Points of view that are poorly expressed or weakly supported can fall under the same category. But promoting views that seem to be at odds with a biblical worldview and left unchallenged are bothersome at the very least.

The most recent issue featured an opinion piece in which a student author recounted his dialog with a friend who believes she has been a lesbian all her life ( the article is linked to heading above). She is described without comment as an adult homosexual Christian. Now, aside from the lack of a challenge to that idea, the account continues with this friend's desire to marry and be happy. The writer agrees. Viewpoints pro and con are not really examined, with one of the "weaker" arguments against gay marriage dismissed as silly. The writer's conclusion: America needs to uphold its promise of freedom to be happy for everyone, and we ought not to interfere.

Since this article was paired with another under the heading "Both Sides Matter," I figured that the companion piece would be a counterpoint. I was wrong. Instead, it was a professor's recollection of judging a debate where a gay debater for homosexual marriage identified himself as a friend of Matthew Shepard, the young man brutally murdered a number of years ago in Wyoming. The professor talked about the profound impact this personal contact with this gay man had on her, and caused her to realize the personal nature of this issue. And... that was it. Good thoughts, but no rebuttal. In fact, it could be taken (even if not intended this way) as endorsement. Do both sides of the argument matter? No, apparently only one side does.

Do I know gay people who want to marry? Yes. Are some of them people that I personally care about? Absolutely. Does this have anything to do with the political issues of gay marriage, of constitutional issues, or the relationship between societal norms, legal policy, and morality (i.e., legislating morality is what law is, at some level)? No. Does it address why Christians who uphold biblical authority may oppose gay marriage even while acknowledging Christians' failure to live up to the biblical ideal themselves? No. It doesn't even make an informed case for homosexual marriage. It only aims for feelings about fairness for nice people.

Bottom line--Cedars offered unbalanced opinion coverage supporting gay marriage. No debate, no real facts to consider, just lots of feeling. If this were an isolated case, that would be sad enough. Pair this, though, with the recent "puff" piece on Mel White--it honestly read like an adoring press release. The article offered no examination of the man's past and his agenda, or of the coercive tactics he chooses to seek to embarrass evangelicals in the media. It was left to Dr. Carl Ruby to offer a response, and while the initial story was presented as "news," Dr. Ruby's response was labeled a "viewpoint." In such cases, the paper seems content to be a promotional tool for various and sundry ideas, rather than a journalistic endeavor covering and commenting on the news and events of the campus, the area, and the world.

Without realizing it, I think the Cedars becomes strong evidence of the need for C.U. to establish a journalism program. If C.U. students are to become gatekeepers in society, as is often stated, then they need to know what a newspaper can and should be, and how Christians with developed biblical worldviews can and should report and opine. News coverage needs facts, and opinions need support other than feelings.

My hope is that next year, the Cedars will raise the bar for itself, seeing its mission as being the student newspaper of an institution whose very existence is "for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ."