The Public Editor

The Observer has begun running a column entitled "Going Green" whose author -- a self-avowed "pothead and legalization advocate" who writes under the pseudonym of Reggie Hubbard -- discusses marijuana use amongst Tufts students and relates it back to efforts to decriminalize the substance.

Tufts students are no strangers to marijuana. Some may abstain completely, but I would guess the majority have taken or will take a hit at some point during their time as Jumbos. So "Hubbard's" column will undoubtedly generate a decent amount of interest, especially as he offers to extend anonymity to anyone wishing to share anecdotes or musings about their own usage for inclusion in his column.

My question is: should the Observer be granting Hubbard anonymity and regularly allotting him page space? Sex columns seem to be a perennial fixture for the Daily, so campus publications already habitually broach topics that would be considered taboo dinner table conversation. But marijuana is illegal, regardless of its prevalence on campus (I know that Massachusetts has decriminalized it, I'm speaking in a broader sense). So could this be seen as an endorsment by the Observer of something that is against the law? Or is it a fair representation of the types of issues that are of importance to Tufts students?

What do you think?

Jeremy,
I think the Observer is making a poor decision with the Hubbard column. I do not think it is an endorsement of smoking marijuana, but I also do not think the column deserves page space in such a respected publication. I understand that the Observer tries to appeal to a wide audience of readers, but what purpose does the column serve? It would make more sense to me if Hubbard wrote about actual news events such as viable marijuana legalization campaigns or legitimate actions by state governments to decriminalize the drug. This does not seem to be Hubbard's intent and as such, I do not think the Observer should continue the "Going Green" column.

-Caleb

Let's keep the conversation going. As always, we invite students to voice their opinions here as well.

Alex,

In response to your observation that "there are many, many drugs that are perfectly legal (and socially sanctioned) and a lot more destructive than cannabis sativa, most notably Nicotiana (tobacco) and the perfectly acceptable liquors, spirits and booze.", this is true. And I understand that part of Hubbard's object is to question the underlying motivations for the laws that leave marijuana illegal and alcohol - with all its pernicious side effects of violence and injury - legal. This is what Caleb drew attention to when he suggested that Hubbard's column focus on news developments in the legalization debate.

Still, an opinion column is allowed to depart from the obligation to find a news peg somewhat, and I think the various Tufts columns collectively offer a cross-section of what is on the minds of Tufts students (even if it's sensational sex columns that frankly don't offer many helpful or useful tips). And I suspect many people share Alex and Reggie's beliefs about how our legal system codifies a hierarchy of which substances are and are not acceptable. I see a disjunction in President Obama's very candid admission about past encounters with weed ("The point was to inhale. That was the point.") and the overblown criticisms of Michael Phelps for taking a puff after having won seven Olympic gold medals. It seems like marijuana usage has become more acceptable and mainstream, and perhaps Hubbard is in touch with the spirit of the times in this sense.

But as I wrote in an earlier post, a publication should never take granting anonymity lightly. I understand that the Observer is trying to protect Hubbard because his reputation in the eyes of future employers or professors could be badly damaged, but at what cost to the Observer's credibility? If they are seen to be sponsoring candid debate, that's all well and good, but I fear some people may view them as a typically liberal college rag granting amnesty to a pothead.

-Jeremy

Jeremy,
I agree that the issue of anonymity should not be taken lightly. The New York Times Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, addressed this very issue here. He brings up the point that "readers hate anonymous sources because they cannot judge the sources’ credibility for themselves." I think this is the problem the Observer faces with the Hubbard column. Why should we listen to what Hubbard has to say? You bring up the fact that maybe "Hubbard is in touch with the spirit of the times," but we will never really know this so long as Hubbard remains anonymous.

-Caleb