Newspapers are often criticized for publishing opinion pieces readers deem offensive. The Maroon is no exception. This year, we received criticism for a column we published in our Viewpoints section in the fall, and we were asked to take the piece down. We continue to stand by publishing the piece. As former editors-in-chief of the Maroon, we write this letter to present our critical reflection on it—a reflection which is part of the discussion we hope the Maroon can foster on our campus.
In the column, “Life of the Veteran Mind: Ariel Joiner,” author Ben Khadim DeMott (A.B. ’25) intended to highlight a student’s experience growing up in the South, navigating the U.S. Navy as a Black woman, and studying at UChicago—including multiple aspects of her perspective that surprised the writer and challenged his prior assumptions.
The Maroon faced scrutiny for choosing to publish this piece on the grounds that it flattened Joiner’s life experiences to serve the article’s broader argument. We acknowledge there are many ways the Maroon could have worked to strengthen the article in the editing process to encourage constructive engagement from readers. As editors-in-chief, we could have better supported our Viewpoints editors to help the writer shape his arguments more effectively.
But ultimately, we maintain our decision to publish the article. The Maroon’s Viewpoints section should serve as a place for any person or organization to freely discuss ideas and news relevant to the University of Chicago community. Such discussion is paramount to the critical examination and learning we all strive to do at UChicago.
Our readers may thus be confronted with ideas they disagree with and writing which may make them feel uncomfortable or offended. We did not aim to minimize this. Rather, our Viewpoints editors are dedicated to helping writers present their own ideas in a way that aids the writer’s argument and helps readers engage in well-intentioned, thoughtful discussions with the piece. One way readers can engage in those discussions is by publishing their own responses in our Viewpoints section.
As editors-in-chief, we attempted to give our Viewpoints section editorial independence to “publish content without fear of retribution from the [executive editors] on the basis of ideology,” as is established in the Maroon’s constitution. We value this independence, and we think our readers should value it too because it allows our paper to represent all aspects of life and community at UChicago, including opinions.
Our Viewpoints section accepts articles that are relevant to the University community, make arguments in good faith, and ground those arguments in facts to support the writer’s opinions. Viewpoints rejects pieces that make ad hominem arguments toward individual people, rather than critiquing the ideas those people hold or the actions they have taken.
We also believed there was value in maintaining the integrity of the Maroon’s 134-year record by not retracting writing published in the paper. Instead, when our writers made factual errors, we addressed them by editing articles and appending public editor’s notes to stories. The only two articles we removed from the website during our tenure were suspected to have leaned heavily on generative artificial intelligence to craft language, which Maroon policies explicitly prohibit.
During our time as editors-in-chief, we consistently endeavored not to take down articles preemptively, even considering retaliation the paper or our writers may have faced for the content of those articles, due to the effect of chilling speech on free discourse.
For the Maroon to continue to strive to represent our community in its fullest capacity, it must not limit the kinds of discussions and experiences reflected in its pages.
Tiffany Li and Elena Eisenstadt are fourth-years in the College. They served as editor-in-chief and deputy editor-in-chief of the Chicago Maroon, respectively, from spring 2025 to winter 2026.
