That’s the question posed by a staff editorial today in The Vanguard, a student newspaper out of Portland State University. I think they’re asking the wrong question. Rape is, unfortunately, used as a punchline ALL THE TIME. So that answers it: yes, it can be. But the better, more important question is, should it be? The Vanguard staff doesn’t really address that because they’re very concerned with addressing why offensive jokes about rape are protected by the first amendment and thus rape CAN be used as a punchline, a fact which is immediately established by the fact that it IS.

Let’s back up. The editorial is a response to anger over a cartoon published by one of their “sister publications” in February. Here’s a description of the cartoon:

Hagar, the cartoon’s protagonist and viking leader, notes that in viking rankings, the group’s pillaging rate is up but “we’re losing a lot of points in the ‘rape’ category.” When his male companion inquires as to how this can be fixed, Hagar responds with, “First, we get you another drink, baby.”

Unsurprisingly, (and thankfully) folks weren’t pleased:

At least one reader found this use of potential sexual assault as a comedic device to be offensive. In addition to a letter to the editor we received—calling for a public reprimand of the Rearguard and the resignation of comic artist Adam Barber—posters were placed around campus shaming the publication and stating that rape, even between two men, is not funny.***

The Vanguard staff then goes for the good old first amendment argument, noting that the cartoon may have been in “poor taste” but it is “protected speech.” This is an argument I hear a lot about humor involving rape, and it never fails to make me incredibly frustrated. There are commonly two parts to this argument, both of which are used in this editorial. The first is simple: you may find it offensive, but that doesn’t mean someone can’t say it. This argument has always struck me as totally irrelevant. Yes, “free speech” is a protected right. But is the right to assemble and protest. For as long as college newspapers publish offensive articles, other students will fight back. What newspaper staffs need to ask themselves is not just CAN we get away with publishing this cartoon/article, but SHOULD we? Are we really adding to dialogue on campus? Is this ACTUALLY entertaining? Sure, once you go through and decide to publish it, you can fall back on the first amendment, but WHY DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Which brings us to the second part of the argument, which is usually: we published it because it was so obvious that it’s satire. The vanguard’s version of this is as follows:

Parodies are a form of social commentary or critique that are protected under the free speech clause of our First Amendment as artistic expression. Artists often use the recognizable to shed light on the repulsive, and in this case, the repulsive was our institution’s connection to a barbaric culture.

Barber used the image of Hagar as a connection to our school mascot, the Vikings, who are historically known as barbarians who used heavy-handed methods of conquering far-off lands. Though historians still argue over whether the “rape and pillage” stigma is accurate, it is hard to dispute that the association nevertheless exists in people’s minds. Barber was making the point that, by proxy, that stigma falls upon our mascot as well.

OK look. I obviously don’t know the cartoonist or his intentions. But this really seems like a stretch. For one thing, this is a misuse of the word parody. What they mean is satire. Let’s look at what the dictionary says about satire:

1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

So, is it possible that the artist in question was trying to use the cartoon as a way to critique the behavior of the vikings and thus the fact that the school’s mascot is implicated in a history of violence? I guess so. Does it seem that way to the average reader? No. Vikings, as far as I know, weren’t really known for using alcohol to facilitate rape. Unlike some of the college students who are going to see this cartoon and laugh. Is it possible that the reader is meant to compare that asshole who sexually assaulted their drunk roommate last month with a viking, understand that the viking is being vilified, and then connect the dots to understand that the cartoonist is calling out that asshole and similar guys? Again, I guess it’s possible. But I think it’s pretty clear that it fails in a big way. And that the punchline, despite intentions, simply makes rape look like not that big of a deal.

So the point is that the first amendment might protect bad humor, but it’s still bad humor, and college newspapers (and all makers of media) shouldn’t be publishing bad humor just because they can. Newspaper editors have a responsibility to review what they are publishing, consider it’s point, use, and entrainment value, and judge whether or not it should be published accordingly. Again, they should ask, “should I be publishing this?” I was the editor of a college newspaper not too long ago, and I definitely fucked up more than a few times by not asking myself that question, or not thinking all that hard about it, anyway. And I had to make a couple of hard apologies. But that’s the job. And it can be a difficult, thankless job with which I, despite my tone in this post, sympathize with a lot. However, you can’t just hide behind the first amendment—we all make choices, and if we can’t defend them beyond “we didn’t do anything we’re not legally allowed to do,” you have some real ethical problems.

[***Why the need to make the distinction here??? Obviously a man raping another man wouldn't be less horrible than a man raping a woman. Obviously.]

•