Juicy discussion follows ad controversy

Differing sides of the argument sit down, come to compromise Read more

EDITORIAL: The Rebel Yell responds

What you see is the image that has stirred many members of the university community into fiery discourse.

The restaurant’s mascot, “Juicy Lucy,” is a graphic caricature of a woman marked up as if she were mere livestock, not a person.

Let’s be clear: No one at The Rebel Yell thinks this is an acceptable view of women or an image that promotes healthy social values.

But our respect for social justice does not stop there.

We believe in a firm code of ethics – one that mandates the separation of editorial content production from advertising revenue and its influences. When our newspaper contains an offensive ad, it is not because we approved it as being consistent with a set of ideals we seek to promote – it is because we are extremely reluctant to violate the precious safeguards that keep the student press free.

Because we do not allow our personal opinions to mix with our collection of revenue, we are free to express our opinions without pressure from those who fund our publication. Yes, this means our advertisers can do as they like with the space they purchase, and sometimes they will make offensive choices, but imagine the consequences if this was not the rule:

What if our reporter who writes on CSUN student government was allowed to weigh in on the content of an ad placed by a Senator?

What if we were afraid to publish a story about violent crime because the perpetrator of that crime had a huge contract in advertisement?

Certainly anyone can see the violations of ethics implicit in allowing editorial content to be pushed around by advertising revenue. Well, it goes both ways.

If we do not withhold from exercising editorial control over our advertising content unless absolutely necessary, we stand to lose the source of that very freedom we defend. The fact is, The Rebel Yell runs on ad revenue. Take that away and we cannot train great journalists to speak the truth regardless of outside influence. Take that away and we cannot give students real-world experience in our advertising office.

Take away an ad because it offends some people, and we would have to take them all out – anything that could offend anyone. Who are we to say that the ad on page 20 is more offensive than the one on page 10? Would that not be a showing of bias and censorship?

But the most important reason of all that we cannot and will not reject the ad in question is this: Forget the fact that without ad revenue in general we could not provide a forum for voices in the UNLV community to sound off on important issues. Had it not been for this ad, who knows how long it would have been before something made this community speak out?

Our Web site is teeming with comments on Anthony Guy Patricia’s op-ed, which criticized the ad and this newspaper for running it. Our inboxes are overflowing with letters. Oh yes, we agree. The mistreatment of social equality in the ad is appalling – but we are proud to be the providers of the forum where you are speaking out.

After the greatly diminished showing at the second rally against cuts to the Nevada System of Higher Education, there were rumblings in the student community that the outpour of support seen at the initial rally was an anomaly – that such a level of student passion and involvement could not be repeated at UNLV. The word was, as one hears so often, that UNLV students are apathetic.

As of publication time, Patricia’s article has attracted 109 comments – more than any single article on this site.

The beauty of free speech is that, although shocking images can be created, movements like these, which act against the use of this image, can also come about.

And this is far from over.

The contract for the offensive ad extends for another month. In only three days this campus has burst into passionate discourse over issues of sexual violence and hate crimes. Imagine what would happen if the discussion continued?

This is what change is made of.

If you haven’t yet, read Patricia’s piece about the advertisement in our Oct. 5 issue and join the lengthy discussion that follows – or contribute an op-ed of your own on this matter for consideration.
If you like, join the Facebook group devoted to protesting the establishment that placed the ad. Follow The Rebel Yell on Twitter and join the conversation that way.

With every word you write – every time you shout out against injustice or raise your voice in support of fairness and truth – you become the reason we hold to our conscience.

You may hate us now, but you are – this is – the reason we are proud to protect the First Amendment in all aspects of The Rebel Yell.

And if this fight means anything to you, we hope you use your own right to free speech to yell, too.

ON THE WEB
UNLV Boycott The Grind! group
Anthony Guy Patricia’s op-ed

The Burger Grind Bar ad in The Rebel Yell is offensive

I am outraged by the full-page color advertisement for The Burger Grind Bar & Lounge that has appeared in at least two editions of The Rebel Yell, the most recent being the one on Thursday.

For those who might have missed this masterpiece of capitalistic garbage, allow me to describe it: Against a distressed, light brown background, the main copy reads, “After a hard day, unwind with something tender.”

A picture of a substantial hamburger is centered between these lines of mismatched print. To the left near the bottom of the page, more copy appears billing The Burger Grind Bar & Lounge as “a new kind of premium burger restaurant with industrial design, cool music and classic cocktails.”

To the right near the bottom of the page is a pseudo stamp bearing the name of this new eatery that gives it three stars and tells us it was established in 2008.

It is what is to the left of the pseudo stamp that is so offensive: a cartoon-like representation of a woman with long brown hair, red lipstick and presumably, an inviting smile on her face, on her knees with her face and nude backside presented to the viewer.

Oh, and don’t let me forget to tell you that almost all of this woman’s body parts are labeled for quick and easy identification: her shoulder, chuck, rib, breast, loin, rump, round and soup bone.

What kind of a message does such a depiction convey?

It connotes that women are nothing more than “tender” things for men to eat after said men have had “a hard day” and need to “unwind.”

That’s the kind of message The Rebel Yell and The Burger Grind Bar & Lounge want to send to the women of the university community? This is the best they can do in the 21st century? I feel as though I have fallen into a time-warp and found myself back at some point in the 1970s, or worse.

The publication of advertisements like that for The Burger Grind Bar & Lounge is doubly ironic considering the fact that on Oct. 8, university students and community members are set to speak out against violence directed toward women during the annual “Take Back the Night” event.

One of the reasons women are victimized by men so often is because of ads like that for The Burger Grind Bar & Lounge, which treat women as no more than cartoons and pieces of meat, undeserving of respect.

While Las Vegas may well be a city in which women are exploited in all sorts of ways for the amusement, titillation and the kicks of men in our patriarchal and misogynistic society, the university is no place for such demeaning, degrading and disgusting portrayals of human beings as featured in the ad for The Burger Grind Bar & Lounge.

As a doctoral student and a two-time alumnus of UNLV, I want answers: Who approved the acceptance and publication of such a reprehensible advertisement? Why was it accepted and published? And what are The Rebel Yell and The Burger Grind Bar & Lounge going to do to compensate those they have offended in the university community for their complete lack of judgment on this matter?