On Tuesday, April 6 at 5:30 pm, McConomy Auditorium became a site of anger, frustration, and disappointment as the staff of The Tartan struggled to justify the publication of this year’s Natrat. The forum was intended for members of the campus community to pose questions to the writers and editors who contributed to the April Fools’ issue of the newspaper. However, questions were juggled and accountability circumvented. Though many voices were heard, one question remains unanswered: what is the future of The Tartan?

At the onset, Dan Gilman, Student Body President, and Gilbert Dussek, Vice President, requested that everyone be respectful of the community. Seated behind a table on McConomy's stage were Jim Puls, Managing Editor, Bob Rost, the author of the questionable comic strip, and Alexander Meseguer, Editor-in-Chief.

Meseguer began by stating that prior to the forum, the editorial board of The Tartan asked him to take a leave of absence, which he was prepared to honor immediately.

“I will no longer speak for The Tartan after this forum,” he stated.

He did, however, emphasize that the The Natrat does not represent the entire organization, which he does not believe is being fully represented in the media coverage of the incident.

The first question from the crowd was aimed at Rost, who has taken responsibility for drawing the comic strip in which a racial epithet was used in a joke about killing African-Americans.

When asked to explain his rationale in creating the comic, Rost replied, “I had the impression that The Natrat was essentially a fairly offensive April Fools paper,” and added that he has a history of drawing offensive comics for the paper.

He admitted knowing that “the language in it was probably too strong, and so I created an alternate comic that I thought was less offensive and offered it to the editor on hand.” A judgment was made to go with the first, more explicit comic.

Though he didn’t explain what informed that decision, he stated that it had been “at a very late hour before the deadline.”

Puls, who had not spoken publicly until the forum, conceded that he was the only editor who saw the page before it went to print. He defended his decision to print the comic because he viewed it as satire.

“Any racist comment in this paper does not reflect how we feel,” he said.

Several people in the audience asked whether the editorial board had plans to resign, or if not, if disciplinary action should be given them. Some students called for the expulsion of everyone responsible for creating the issue. One audience member, after learning of Rost's dismissal from The Tartan, questioned, “...Bob is the only content creator up there... are similar actions being considered against the other content creators?”

Lorraine Lyman, a doctoral student in chemistry, addressed the entire staff and asked, “Why do you all think you should ever be allowed to come back to The Tartan? Why do you think you shouldn’t be expelled from the University?”

While Rost said he would not be contributing to The Tartan again, Meseguer still hopes he will be able to continue his role as Editor-in-Chief and does not believe there are grounds for expulsion.

When asked by Nick Ennis of The Carnegie Pulse who would take over as Editor-in-Chief while Meseguer is on leave, the panelists did not give any clear answer. Meseguer said that the editorial staff would meet subsequently to decide on such matters. Ennis then asked whether Puls, as managing editor, would be expected to fill the seat, as prescribed by the organization's consitution, and questioned why Meseguer had been asked to take a leave of absence but the same had not been asked of Puls.

Puls did not respond and Meseguer said The Tartan's editorial staff would discuss future leadership later in the evening.

A black male, who did not want to be identified, raised his voice to say that this act is “an indication that racism still exists in America.” Many people cheered in agreement and expressed the pain that this publication has caused them, also noting that the transgressions in The Natrat were not limited to Rost's comic.

As the panel continued to emphasize that they had not intended to hurt people’s feelings, the satire defense was attacked by the audience. A member of the audience asked, “The full page of poems that depicted the mutilation and rape…what was the satiric intent of those poems? Why should [women on campus] not feel a sense of fear and discomfort because of it?”

Arthur O’Dwyer, a sophomore in mathematical sciences and member of The Tartan's copy staff, came forward to say that he had seen all of the paper aside from the Science & Technology page before it went to print. “Parts of it were satire, parts of it were humor, parts of it were tasteless,” he said. “I thought the Dossier parody was tasteless. I didn’t like it.” But by the time he saw it, it was too late to write anything else.

“There are many parts of it that are intentionally offensive,” O’Dwyer continued. “It is tasteless humor and I personally find it really funny.” He suggested that in the future The Natrat should feature a disclaimer. “We made mistakes, but I hope it won’t happen again. It certainly won’t happen again until next April first.”

A first-year student in the Heinz School said, “In trying to defend this as satire, you have to realize satire is somewhat clever...and that issue was not clever. Using a racial epithet is not clever.” He also noted that The Tartan had “a history of taking a stance against diversity,” which garnered much applause from the audience.

“That is an opinion,” said Rost to the Heinz student, in reference to the cleverness of the comic.

Echoing the sentiments of others, an audience member shouted out, “You guys are failing to take responsibility here.”

Prior concerns about content in The Tartan were raised, particularly regarding editorials criticizing affirmative action on campus and the singing of the Black National Anthem, “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” during University sponsored Black History Month events.

Many people said they no longer believe that the newspaper accurately reflects the voice of the students at Carnegie Mellon.

It was then that the tenor of the forum shifted – students stepped forward to explain what it feels like to be a young, black person today, and a few women stood up as victims of rape who were deeply offended by the poems and imagery condoning violence against women.

Describing how she felt when she saw these pages, Jenny Andrus, a graduate student in English, said, “There were no words. There were only tears.”

“This has done something detrimental to the campus community. I have been here three years and never felt so isolated,” said Ashley Sherman, a junior in the drama department.

Annalisa Schaefer, the literary editor for Dossier, The Tartan'sliterarysupplement, stepped forward to say that she had produced the images in the background of the explicit poetry, though she had not written the poems herself. “I am female, I have a vagina,” she said. “I saw it [the poems] as something that was grossly absurd and ridiculous…I strongly believe that the poet did not intend to harm anybody or offend anybody. He was trying to be humorous.”

Michael Croland was identified by Schaefer as the author of the poems, but was not present at the discussion. Meseguer said Croland was on a leave of absence.

“What can I do other than ask for your forgiveness for that?” responded Puls to the attacks on the explicit background and poetry.

One woman, who said she has been raped and called racially offensive terms because of her Hispanic heritage, said that while she had been offended by the content in The Natrat, she knew it wasn’t intended to hurt her.

Similarly, Rashan Christopher Walker, a junior in business administration and an African-American who said he had been subject to racial slurs, tried to speak in support of The Tartan, but was quickly shouted down by the crowd.

Students resumed the discussion of previous situations in which The Tartan failed to acknowledge the feelings of the African-American community on campus. Kofi Darkwa, a senior in chemical engineering, said that Spirit, the organization for black awareness, had written several editorials to The Tartan, all of which had been revoked. Meseguer responded that while “The Tartan respects all voices from the campus community…when we received that editorial, there were flaws in it, and we tried to work with you.”

But the crowd’s patience waned as no one took full responsibility for all of the material printed in the newspaper. The volume in McConomy rose as the black male who wished to remain anonymous called out, “Even the administration has piss poor responsibility…I’ve been burned by this institution…I could go up to the President, to the VP of Enrollment, and prove that they are stupid, that they are cowards, that they are racists.”

Those who felt their voices weren’t reflected in student publications were urged to join The Tartan staff. Puls talked about his frequent postering of the campus due to a severe shortage of writers.

Former Tartan Art Editor Bum Lee cited a loss of staff when The Carnegie Pulse was formed and said the organization has been understaffed for some time.

After two hours of charged discussion, the forum was called to a close and Michael Murphy, dean of student affairs, spoke.

“There is administrative response. One of the actions that we’ve taken is to create a commission that will include students, faculty, and staff as well as alumni to review the whole of this situation, to make sure that The Tartan is the student voice.”

Appointments to the commission have not yet been made, and the next steps are still unknown.

A crowd of students gathered outside of McConomy afterward to recap arguments and discuss their enduring fears and frustrations. Tensions remain high as students, faculty, and staff alike wait to see what will happen next.

4/8/04 Correction: This article originally quoted Rost as saying, “I am not really interested in your opinion,” in response to the comment, “In trying to defend this as satire, you have to realize satire is somewhat clever...and that issue was not clever. Using a racial epithet is not clever.” However, Rost actually said "That is an opinion."