So now that you’ve all read page 7 about The Opus, the actual happenings from the interviews and all the craziness that’s going on, I thought I would offer my thoughts. The fact is simple: the takeover of the paper was inexcusable. There are no documented complaints officially against Gavin MacVicar, nor has there been much deliberation on the content of the paper within the paper itself.
Even if people disagree with the content, Gavin would have published those letters to the editor; however, he did not receive any – except the ones in these recent issues. So what really happened? And who gets to decide what is published in a student paper?
Although our paper is owned by LUSU, we maintain our editorial rights, as we should. However, if students have issues, we address those issues. We make apologies, we write retractions or corrections, and sometimes we even delete certain controversial columns to forfeit legal issues. Yes, this is how a student paper works and how it always will, I assume.
What is the point of a student paper if it doesn’t contain diverse, debatable topics? This does not mean I agree with everything student papers put in the paper, but it does mean that I get it; I get why controversial photos and topics are published and why students enjoy those papers.
The Argus, however, is currently not one of those radical student papers. I think the paper follows the trends of the staff, and this year, The Argus staff is fun and energetic, but also not so into legal battles and having people complain. Maybe another year will be different, but there are still the guidelines to follow in the constitution in regard to discrimination of any person. In the past, The Argus has been extreme activist oriented in some years, but again, student papers go through seasons, and the editor still maintains editorial autonomy, even though there is no financial autonomy.
I both appreciate and flinch when I read that Brennen Van Brenk wants The Argus in the college’s ACE building because we are more professional. Mixed emotions no doubt. I am not swayed one-way or the other on the matter, but the basic reasoning is this: a cancellation of ad contracts and overall student numbers is required to stop delivering to a place. If you do not like it, do not read it. One person cannot speak for all; opinions are valid and need to be taken with respect and thoughtfulness, but to stop delivering to the building, there needs to be more channels flipped through, more students writing in with official complaints, and the board has to have a ruling on the matter after the fact.
Transparency, when covering a student union’s meetings, is important for the students to know what is going on with their money and their votes. Editorial autonomy is much different than an autonomous newspaper; student newspapers are always torn on their content.

Brandi Cameron
Editor-in-Chief