Media use of Christian symbols fuels debate

Media use of Christian symbols fuels debate

First Amendment becomes central to the discussion

By Rashmi Nijagal

A nude woman wearing a halo, surrounded by cherubs and the words
"Virgin Merry," adorned the cover of last May’s issue of the gay,
lesbian and bisexual newsmagazine Ten Percent.

Intended to illustrate an issue about virginity and sexuality,
it ignited a First Amendment controversy within the UCLA
community.

Though freedom of the press is protected by the First Amendment,
many say that it is dangerous when the freedom of expression is
allowed to offend others.

Last December, Rev. Paul Dechant, associate director of the
University Catholic Center, filed an official grievance, regarding
the use of Christian symbols, with the UCLA Communications
Board.

The grievance specifically addressed the TenPercent cover. In
addition, Daily Bruin advertisements, such as one that mocked the
creation theory and another that termed Jesus as "some holy guy"
were also brought to the board’s attention.

"I believe that there is a double standard in student media that
Christian symbols are not given the same kind of care as other
religious symbols," said Dechant. "The media at UCLA has generally
been very sensitive about the use of religious, political or racial
symbols. The exception seems to be in regard to Christian
symbols."

At last Tuesday’s meeting, the Communications Board, which
oversees all student media at UCLA, reviewed and discussed
Dechant’s complaint. The board did not take action because it found
the decision which the editors made, when publishing the symbols,
was not outside their First Amendment rights.

"We decided that it was inappropriate for us to take any action
against the media involved," said Darin Soler, a fourth-year
political science student and Communications Board chair. "Allowing
the freedom of expression means that some people may be offended.
We place a lot of faith in our editorial staff and it is their
place to decide what is or is not appropriate."

Though Dechant stated that he did not feel it fair to ask this
year’s editors to apologize for the actions of their predecessors,
he does hope that as new editors come in, they be made sensitive to
the use of Christian religious symbols.

"It is not a question of freedom of the press," said Dechant.
"It is a question of whether things should be done for the sake of
grabbing attention. I was asking the board to ensure that more
thought goes into the use of Christian symbols."

The staff at TenPercent, however, insists that the "Virgin
Merry" cover was not run for shock-value.

"The issue itself was about virginity so the cover and the issue
were consistent with each other," said Isabel Kugler, a fourth-year
anthropology student and last year’s managing editor. "The
intention of the cover was not to offend anyone. There are
different ways to interpret things and this (is because of) our
diversity."

Board members reiterated the fact that the editors have the
authority to make editorial decisions as to the content of their
publications.

"The editors are approved by the board, and they are educated in
issues of libel and sensitivity," said Jason Stuart, a graduate
student in the film school and vice chairman of the Communications
Board. "There are a lot of procedures that go into making sure that
irresponsible students are not making decisions. Our position is to
see if the editors acted responsibly and if they were consistent
with their journalistic standards. We saw that they were."

Some students, however, are upset over the advertisement
published in the Daily Bruin last quarter that was paid for by the
undergraduate student government. The ad set an artist’s version of
Jesus across from a picture of a rock band, asking readers whether
they wanted to go see "some holy guy" or the music group.

Currently, over 400 students have signed a petition asking the
student government for a refund of their fees used to pay for the
advertisement.

"I have no religious preferences at all but to blatantly insult
any person’s faith and to have it printed in a widely read
publication is immature," said Kim Haden, a first-year philosophy
student. "The paper should have seen that before these things were
printed."

The advertisement, however, never went through the normal
channels of approval.

"I never saw the ad, so it was never approved by me," said Matea
Gold, Daily Bruin editor in chief. "I received many calls from the
community, and I understand that they were offended. This
advertising was an education for our staff, and we need to rework
our sensitivity to such issues."

However, it is also the duty of the advertisers to act
responsibly, Gold added.

After being informed of the board’s decision on Wednesday,
Dechant noted that he was pleased with the result of the board’s
deliberation.

"My goal was not to punish anyone," said Dechant. "It was just
to ask for heightened awareness, and I think that has been
achieved. If there are instances in the future, I know that
everyone involved will be able to respond in a quick and
responsible way."