Content Template
Chronology | Reflection | StudySURVEY RESULTS
I applied for and was granted permission to conduct a survey of individuals who were involved in the aftermath of "Blackout Reser." These students and faculty were involved in the conversations campus wide that followed "Blackout Reser." The survey consisted of 17 questions and was sent out via e-mail. I secured approval for the participation of 30 individuals. Twenty-six possible participants were contacted via e-mail and 15 agreed to participate. A second e-mail was sent to those who had agreed to participate, with the survey and a document of informed consent. Ten surveys were completed and returned.
The participants were spread along the age spectrum, as they are students as well as faculty. The participants were of no particular race, religion or socioeconomic status. The participants of this survey were selected because of their involvement in the university-wide conversation regarding "Blackout Reser." Some of these conversations happened in large-scale and scheduled ways. Other conversations were held in small, informal settings at Student Media offices or around campus.
Five of the participants continue to work or have worked at the OSU Department of Student Media in some capacity - the capacity was not identified to protect anonymity - and the other five partipants have no affiliation with the department. Of the participants, four were students and six were staff members. None of the participants were involved in the creation of the image. Eight of the participants were involved in or personally planned the formal discussions that crossed the OSU campus. Two of the participants were only involved in informal conversations that took place. Questions ranged from the actual effect of the Barometer's photo illustration on the individual to their continuing opinions regarding The Daily Barometer and the response of the university. Questions regarding the OSU Department of Student Media and training programs are addressed in the section titled "Examining Training Needs" on page 62.
The survey addressed as many questions of contention, which were raised in discussions following the event, as possible. The first non-biographical question of the survey asked if participants recognized a small image of the Barometer's front page. The banner of the newspaper was intentionally excluded and only the photo illustration was included. Each of the 10 participants replied that they did recognize the image. The next question addressed participants' initial reaction to the image. Two of the participants were personally offended, six knew that the image would be offensive and two participants were not bothered by the image. Only one of the latter two participants was affiliated with Student Media. Participant no. 1 was "shocked and dismayed" following publication of the image. The participant wrote, "It made me feel sad that our staff at the Barometer would not realize the inappropriate nature of this image and accompanying article and how many people this would hurt." Participant no. 2, in contrast, wrote, "[My] first reaction to it was school spirit. I was fine with it." Other participants took issue with the caption that said "Paint your face black, it scares the Wildcats."Another participant said that he/she could not have comprehended or anticipated the full reaction of the university community. Participant no. 5 said that he/she knew the image would anger and upset members of the African or African-American communities on campus.
The next question addressed the continuing feelings of survey participants toward the image. Participant no. 1 was personally affected by the incident, therefore he/she continues to feel sad. This participant was attacked because of the role he/she played in the discussions. Many of the participants still believe that it was "pretty stupid" and "in poor taste" to print the image illustrating "Blackout Reser." Those participants who disliked the image or knew it would offend still believe it was in poor taste. Those who believe the image was published with good intention and did not find it offensive still consider it as such.
Overwhelmingly, participants described the university-sponsored meetings that occurred after the incident as "poorly handled" and frustrating. Participant no. 1 wrote, "I felt that the perspectives of the African American students were not being heard or were being discounted and diminished, which seemed to add to the frustration felt by the African-American and minority communities here at OSU." This participant also described other meetings as "fruitless" because all of the attendees understood the problem. The participant responded that it was like "preaching to the choir." Participant no. 3 described one meeting as a "disaster" because "too many people were still wounded by the experience and too hurt to get to a place of authentic dialogue." A later meeting, as described by participant no. 3, was "much better," as it was between a few Black students and Barometer staff. "It was focused on where people were at the time and what they needed to move on. I thought it was authentic and I saw people make some amazing breakthroughs at that meeting." Participant no. 5 was involved in discussions with the faculty advisors of the Black Cultural Center. This participant said that once communication began between the "two parties - the Daily Barometer and its affiliates and the Black Cultural Center and the students/faculty it represents on campus," they participated in many discussions. Participant no. 6 was frustrated by "extreme positions taken by some of the students and my perception that some sought to exploit the situation for personal benefit." Participant no. 10 said, "[The meetings] made me feel like there were multiple sides of the story and that all student's [sic] voices needed to be heard and addressed. I definitely felt like I was a bit ignorant to how some groups of students would be hurt and offended by the image."
The next question addressed the specifics of the image. The survey encouraged respondents to explain exactly what about the image offended them. Four of the participants answered that the black face paint, combined with what looked like an Afro wig, inspired thoughts of 1920s minstrel-era blackface. Three participants wrote that the image did not offend them. Participant no. 8 wrote that it is unfortunate that black is a school color. Participant no. 10 said that he/she would be offended if something similar happened again because that means no lesson was learned from "Blackout Reser." Two participants left the question blank or said they preferred not to elaborate. Participant no. 3 believed that the image wasn't necessarily the issue, but that the Barometer handled the incident in such a way that it was offensive. Participant no. 7 was against the fact that the Barometer was acting as a cheer squad for a University Athletics event, which was planned by a Barometer staff member.
The survey also addressed the response of both the Barometer staff as well as university officials. First, the survey asked, "Do you feel that the Barometer staff responded appropriately after this image was published? Please elaborate." Six participants answered that the Barometer staff did not respond appropriately. Interestingly, four of those participants had affiliation with the Department of Student Media. Two participants did not answer the question and two participants said that the Barometer staff responded appropriately eventually. Participant no. 9 wrote, "My understanding is that the Barometer initially failed to listen and appreciate the concerns expressed by offended students and colleagues. After too long a delay, the Barometer created an online dialogue to help the community work through issues." Participant no. 1 believed that the Barometer staff did not respond appropriately and wrote, "While I understand that the Baro staff were not aware of the history of blackface, the majority of minority students were and they are all in the same age group so there really is no excuse for offensiveness, intentional or not." Participant no. 3 reflected the attitude of the participants who believed the Barometer responded appropriately eventually. They wrote, "I think the Barometer acted in good faith once they realized how upset everyone was, but by that time, it was too late. I think they should have been more proactive on the frontend [sic]."
Participant no. 4 addressed the feelings of the campus on the whole: There were many white majority who I heard expressing surprise that anyone was hurt or offended by the image. They saw it purely as a show of spirit and did not want to listen to what others had to say about what they felt viewing the image. I think the Barometer staff learned a lot through all the discussions, but I wish it had a larger impact on others in the campus community.
Participant no. 7 said that it is not permissible to dismiss someone's feelings when he/she is offended. Though the Barometer staff eventually understood the issue, "I think the staff would have seen it sooner had they been less on the defensive in the beginning." It was a consensus among those who said the Barometer staff did not respond appropriately, that the staff waited too long to offer a response to those who were offended.
The survey also addressed "What could have been done better?" on the part of the Barometer staff. While many participants said, "see previous question," others did offer a response in the form of suggestions for improvement. Participant no. 1 believed that diversity training should be mandatory for all staff. The participant also believed, "A staff member who is not a student and is fully aware of minority issues should be proofing the paper prior to publication." Three of the participants implied or directly stated that timeliness was an issue - too much time elapsed between initial complaint and response from Barometer staff. Two participants commented that the Barometer staff followed up well and fully participated in conversations once they realized that there was an issue.
The next question addressed the continuing feelings of participants toward The Daily Barometer. Four participants continue to enjoy reading the newspaper. Four feel neutral (as before) toward the paper. And two participants do not feel good about the paper. Both of these participants believe that the Barometer staff has acted in bad faith or have been "tone deaf about issues of diversity on campus." One of these participants has worked for the Barometer in the past. Participant no. 4 wrote, "I think the Barometer is a good student paper and I think the staff learned from the incident." One neutral participant wrote, "I'll defend the Barometer's right to print anything but I may not agree with the content." Participant no. 9 wrote, "I think increased diversity on the staff and editorial board of the Barometer would be helpful."
In an attempt to include other incidents of Student Media effects, the survey asked participants if there were other times that they had been offended by something printed in the Barometer. Five participants answered in the affirmative, citing mostly the Nathanael Blake column printed in 2006 titled "The Islamic double-standard." One participant mentioned a KBVR-TV show that included a segment that addressed the question "How far have you gone to get some?" Of those participants who answered in the affirmative, two are students and three are staff. Five participants answered that they had never been offended by something in the Barometer; of those three were staff and two were students.
The survey also addressed the response of the university to "Blackout Reser." Seven participants believed that the university responded appropriately. Of those, three are members of Student Media. Two participants were neutral to the response of the university and one believed that the university did not respond appropriately. In fact, participant no. 8 wrote, "I was told by several minority administrators that they were not offended by the image and they didn't think the issue was as big some thought it was." Participant no. 1 wrote that he/she had contacted President Ray and asked him what he was doing. The participant found his answer unacceptable. The participant said that results have been "slow and indiscernible."
Because the university, and Ray, described "Blackout Reser" as a "teachable moment," the survey asked participants what they had learned from the entire situation. Many of the participants described something they learned, whether it was about the reaction of the community or about their work in media. Participant no. 1 learned that he/she is not safe on campus, and that there are people "...who adamantly do not want change or acceptance for anyone who looks or behaves any differently from themselves."
Participant no. 2 learned that there are some words and images that are not appropriate to use in professional media work. Participant no. 3 said, "I was amazed at how many people from all backgrounds who did not know about blackface and who did not have any empathy for people that would find such images offensive." Participant no. 4 believes the Barometer staff learned a lot but perhaps the rest of the campus community did not. Participant no. 6 "...had the importance of dialogue and humility reinforced for me." Participant no. 7 said, "I learned how little students know about the history of discrimination and how easy it is to be insensitive to someone else's issues." Participant no. 8 wrote, "I think people learned that everything needs to be examined prior to publication." Participant no. 9 wrote: The magnitude of the reaction to the slow response to reader concern by the Barometer was greater than I would have expected. It suggests that we have much further to go in building a diverse community than I appreciated."
Participant no. 10 wrote: It is difficult to be aware of everyone's feelings, cultures, and situations, and to understand how everyone will react to various things, however it is vitally important for all of us as people and a community to continue to try and to learn. In addition to this we have to learn to be forgiving and encouraging rather than demeaning and harsh to those of us who make mistakes or we will lose the opportunity to teach and educate each other about ourselves. In additional comments, participant no. 3 included a thought regarding the survey and the incident and discussions as a whole. "I think it is a mistake to focus only on the image in the Barometer. It's all of the issues around the image that were the problem. In many ways, I think the Barometer ended up being the scapegoats for a lot of other serious issues that are present on our campus."
Overall, the survey revealed that the Barometer staff was overwhelmingly believed to be slow to respond to community criticism. Also, many of the participants learned just how effective the campus community can be in organizing a protest and responded to injustice. On many of the other questions, there was no dominant belief. The initial reaction to the image was much the same across the board, but there were only two participants who were personally offended. Six participants knew that it would offend others. There was a 50 percent split for participants who had been previously offended by something created in Student Media. Most of the participants believed that the university responded appropriately, though they offered little explanation of what exactly was done well. Additionally, a few of the respondents added that the "Blackout Reser" issue was more than just a Barometer issue. They added that the entire incident and the response following were and continue to be university issues.