'Protestors' Headline Was Misleading

To the Editors of The Crimson:

We are writing in response to one of the headlines in your January 18th issue. On the front page, under the main heading "War Provokes Campus Rallies," you juxtapose two articles: one reporting on the rally held by people currently supporting the military action of U.S. and allied armed forces in the Persian Gulf and the other reporting on the rally held by people currently protesting the said military action. The former article is titled "Protestors Support Troops." We find your choice of this headline irresponsible.

Perhaps the headline was meant to show that those participating in the rally were protesting against the early anti-war protest. The article, however, contains no such information; instead, it clearly states that the participants of the rally were supporting current U.S. action. Therefore, the headline is misleading.

By calling this group of people by a false name, you deny the group a positive identity. We do not speak of "positive" in a connotative sense, but the sense in which the word expresses recognition. The supporters of military action posit themselves as a group by holding a rally, and thus they earn a positive identity as a group.

You have denied them this identity by calling them exactly what they are not--protestors rather than activists, advocates or supporters. In contrast, you call the group of people who rallied to protest military action "activists." This is a correct name for the group and gives the group a positive identity. Those in support of military action deserve a positive identity as well.

Juxtaposing these two articles is an effective method of showing activism on two sides of an issue, but the selected headlines promote the prevalent assumption that the only political stance held on this campus is protest against current military action. One may or may not support all or any of the decisions that led up to the current situation in the Gulf, but one does not necessarily object to supporting the current war effort.

We find this assumption about the community's political stance to be thoughtless and personally offensive. We hope that your choice of headlines was an oversight and not a promotion of the said assumption. If it was the latter, please review your responsibility to uphold the standards of good journalism and please reconsider the use of your power to manipulate your readership. Julia M. Fromholz '92   Courtney Alaine Williams '92