Must all views be represented fairly?

Should the columnists employed by the IDS opinion page represent both liberal and conservative views equally? \nThat is the question that was raised last week in regard to some recent columns that were printed -- and one that wasn't -- on the opinion page of this newspaper.\nIt all started with a complaint from a reader about the lack of conservative voices on the opinion page. "How about getting some writers who represent the other half of IU students?" the reader wrote, citing as examples, "those who don't believe in abortion on demand, those who support school choice for all students and their parents, those who believe they can spend their own money better than the federal government can, (and) those who don't believe Christians are 'evil, ignorant extremists,' etc."\nThis reader cited columns written by Duncan Teater (Jan. 8: "Bush cabinet an unwelcome Christmas gift"), Adam Lederer (Jan. 9: "An unlikely pair of Texas presidents") and Gabriel Lewin (Jan. 11: "What I did during winter break") as examples of liberal bias in the IDS.\nThen it was brought to the ombudsman's attention that a column written by graduate student Jim Stinson was not going to run because it wasn't timely. This interested me because Stinson happens to be one of the few conservative IDS columnists, and he usually writes about political affairs -- a touchy subject, to say the least. \nThe column Stinson intended for publication was a "political notebook" piece that provided commentary on John Ashcroft, President George W. Bush's nominee for attorney general, and also mused on the results of the national, state and local elections in November. The opinion editor thought the election content made the column not timely enough for publication.\nThe fact that these two events coincided is just that -- coincidence. But it forces us to reexamine and question the mission of the IDS opinion page. Should it cater to liberal and conservative points of view -- equally, if possible? Or should it publish whatever it thinks is most representative of its audience? \nThese are tough questions. To their credit, the IDS opinion editors have attempted to answer them. "Right now the page has a somewhat liberal bias, but only in the regular columnists," Opinion Editor Autumn Witt said last week. "Unfortunately, I can't make conservatives come write for me, and it turns out that more liberals than conservatives have applied."\nShe said she thinks the IDS staff editorials make up for this discrepancy. "That (liberal) bend is somewhat corrected in the staff editorials," Witt said. "The group which meets for editorial board is fairly balanced and the staff editorials reflect that."\nWithout a doubt, newspapers should have the freedom to establish their own editorial voices. This is usually accomplished through the use of staff editorial columns. But the columnists who fill up the rest of a newspaper's opinion page also contribute to its identity and voice in the community. \nThe history and tradition of journalism has often seen newspapers strive to establish themselves as "liberal" or "conservative" based on the audience they are trying to serve. In Chicago, for example, the Tribune is regarded as the conservative paper and the Sun-Times serves as its more liberal rival. Like politicians, newspapers have their own core audiences/constituencies.\nBut the IDS must deal with different circumstances. Its audience comprises people from a diverse academic and cultural environment. As such, the newspaper should, in the interests of serving such an audience, strive to provide diverse views and perspectives within the confines of its opinion pages.\nOf course, the fact that the ombudsman or a reader thinks the IDS should or shouldn't print something does not require it to do so. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Miami Herald Publishing Co. vs. Tornillo (1971) said forcing a newspaper to give equal space to differing viewpoints is unconstitutional. "A responsible press," the court said in its decision, "is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and like many other virtues is cannot be legislated."\nSo what is the responsible thing to do in this case? The answer to that question, like so many others, is elusive. But one thing is certain: The IDS must have the freedom to decide for itself what viewpoints and perspectives will be printed on its opinion pages. \nYou, the readers, will decide whether this freedom is well used. If it is not, do not hesitate to voice your own opinions.