On March 12, the Federal Communications Commission levied a maximum forfeiture of $247,500 on three ClearChannel Communications-affiliated radio stations along the East Coast for breaches of “decency.”
According to the Commission, the stations broadcasted “graphic and explicit sexual material,” with the intent “to pander to, titillate and shock listeners.” ClearChannel eagerly expressed apparent remorse for its error by canceling all broadcasts of the Howard Stern Show on its 1,200 stations. In the meantime, the Commission, after being questioned by CBS vice president Martin Franks following the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show, admitted that its jurisdiction has been largely undefined. As the 2004 election draws ever closer, candidates’ stances on “what is appropriate and what is not” for mass communication will ultimately play a role.
The question of decency, however, is not limited to cable television or radio. In fact, it is no longer constrained to the post-college world. As is common knowledge now, a contingent of students at Harvard University (“The Vanderbilt of the North”) have launched “H-Bomb,” a sex-oriented magazine that has received accusations of being openly pornographic. Defending their intentions, Camilla Hardy and Katharina Baldegg explained that, although focused on “the crucial topic” of sex, the magazine would generally be “open-minded, comprehensive, sometimes irreverent, often playful, [and] always entertaining.” As rumors began surfacing that the first issue would feature fully-nude Harvard students on the cover, however, the reaction has become less enthusiastic.
According to Harvard administrators, “H-Bomb” received initial approval from the University’s Committee on College Life based on claims that none of its material would be pornographic. The original plan was based around claims of sexually-related content and “art,” but nothing explicitly pornographic. The Committee, which has not met again to revisit the issue since granting approval, stressed that although the magazine had been conceptually approved, no University monies could be employed to fund its production. Harvard’s Undergraduate Council, however, has offered to help fill the void by granting funding.
As long as approval is not withdrawn, “H-Bomb” is scheduled to debut in May. Proponents of the magazine and other sexually related periodicals, such as “Squirm” at Vassar, claim the right of free speech in expressing material and opinions that might not “normally” be found in a college publication. Foul sentiments against possible censorship have already been expressed by students. While it is important to uphold free speech (indeed the motivation behind the Committee on College Life’s approval), it also important to remember that such a publication bears the approval of Harvard, and that, regardless of the intent, the magazine reflects Harvard in its content. Longstanding as one of the most prestigious centers for higher education in the world, Harvard carries an impressive list of alumni, including President George W. Bush (Harvard Business School).
As universities, including Vanderbilt, continue to lean increasingly towards the left, one must question which “absolute” standards will remain absolute, and which will fade into the murky waters of relativism. Our nation’s academic institutions have long been centers of reputation and integrity, much of which has been compromised over the recent decades. The development of “H-Bomb” and subsequent action by the Harvard administration represent a crucial step in the continued evolution of the twenty-first century definition of “honor” and “truth” (ironically, the motto of Harvard). Should “H-Bomb” begin circulation, let us hope the powers that be will enact the appropriate restraints. Those involved must take a stand not only to preserve tastefulness, but to protect those who, though now supporting such a publication as “liberating” and “pioneering,” will find themselves ashamed and embarrassed twenty years down the road.
Comments