Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 13:23:17 +0300

Subject: Re: Concern with one of your op-eds
From: AUB Outlook <outlook@aub.edu.lb>

Dear -------------,

I am actually the one going through all of these emails, and I will send
you the standard reply:

----------------------

We have been receiving several complaints on behalf of this article. It is
within every AUB student's right to respond with a "Letter to the Editor",
though I believe the LGBTQ community in AUB would like to issue a response
themselves, which we will be giving priority. Should you like to submit
your own reply (approx 300 words), please do so before Sunday so we may
give it space within the layout.

The writer in question is responsible for his own views, and Outlook
maintains that every staff writer has the right to publish their own
viewpoints, which are not meant to be edited unless for grammatical and
stylistic error. As stated in our bylaws, we do not reflect any of our
staff writers viewpoints, and remain a secular, independent newspaper. We
do however apologize for not better filtering this article for it's bigoted
nature, yet the viewpoint still stands as the author's own.

We will be publishing an errata about the comment on Russia's jail cells,
as Russia legalized homosexuality in 1993.

------------

That being said, Outlook will be issuing a formal statement within our next
issue, but I would first like to get the opinion of the Dean in this
matter. I agree with you on all of the above points, but we must do what
we, and the Office of Student Affairs, believe is right for the newspaper
at the end of the day. Should this result in a formal apology or a
clarifying statement, we will be releasing it as soon as we receive
approval.

Please let me know should you have any further questions.

Lojine Kamel
Editor-in-Chief

Outlook 2011-2012

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:16 PM, ----------------------- wrote:

> Dear Outlook,
>
> I know you have been flooded with these letters today in response to Mr.
> Sibai's op-ed. But here are my comments:
>
> There are many things to take from this, and I'm not going to pretend that
> I know what the editor's position entails exactly nor that I am an expert.
> But there are a few points that are the most pertinent:
>
> 1. While freedom of speech does exist, in the end, the editor also still
> has the freedom to decide what goes into the paper and what does not.
>
> 2. This should be considered especially when an article is littered with
> inaccuracy and personally attacks an already vulnerable and discriminated
> population.
>
> 3. Time constraints should not hinder proper editing and reviewing of a
> piece. In the end, Outlook reflects AUB as a whole, and while everyone is
> entitled to their option, I also think that Outlook should be treated as a
> platform that is bound by certain rules.  This piece is a clear example to
> me of one that is in violation of every rule and every code of respect,
> tolerance, fact-reporting, and decency.
>
> And I will add that if someone wanted to complain that Outlook DIDN'T
> publish it, the editor also has that right, and the writer has the right to
> complain. They can publish wherever they want, but I don't want this even
> possibly, remotely reflecting the opinions and values of the AUB student
> population, or our university.
>
> Please exercise better decisions in the future.
>
> Regards,
>
>------------------------------
> Concerned AUB student
>