Daily Boycott? Jury of your peers? Nope!

ANOTHER DAILY BOYCOTT??? Not likely. But that's not what the Daily's article title would lead you to believe, "NAACP considers boycotting." The article then goes on to state,

"Fair [2nd Vice President] would not comment on whether the group is considering a boycott or what other actions NAACP will take against the Daily."

Now that's funny, so I may not have my PhD yet, but I can read decently well. The reason this is so interesting to me is that if Fair gave the reporter no indication of action then the title could have been "NAACP considers joining Daily staff in response to cartoon" or how about "NAACP has concerns about Daily's treatment of minorities" or "NAACP plans to host carnival on diag." Anyone of these titles is possible but instead boycott is used.

Why does this matter, you ask? And you should. Because the past Daily Boycott left a bitter taste in a lot of people's mouths. The boycott was poorly planned and executed, but I think it did have some positive results (if you want more commentary on what the boycotts did in my eyes, I'll post it later). Since its planning and execution failed a couple of years ago, people are apprehensive to endorse another boycott. So how do you address concerns of a group critiquing you while delegitmizing their claim? Give them a headline with a strong amount of stigma attached. So throughout the day, numerous students will glance the cover of the Daily as they usually do and think, "Oh no, another boycott, I'm against that" and continue on with their day. Consider me a conspiracy theorist or a political strategist, but do send congrats to the Daily, even Sun-tzu would be proud.

I've also recently been visiting the Daily editor's Blog. Jason has been posting about the Daily's plan of redress, another smart move. But he recently decided to change the dates on which his response to the controversy would come. I hope he doesn't already have his response ready, that would mean he wasn't considering everyone's voices. On his blog he also mentions the Multicultural Commission, I ask him a bunch of questions about it in the comments section of his post and get some answers . We will see if the commission has any leverage to create change at the Daily (more on that later).

I'm saying all this so that readers realize that strategy is important in any disagreement. Diplomacy wins many battles. Even Michelle Bien the author of the original comic has joined the "can't we all just get along" parade. But change is a slow process. As NAACP and other bodies respond to the concerns of the Daily, I wonder how it will be portrayed. Most people get there image of a thing through second and third hand information, not primary participation. This information forms opinions and determines next moves.

And while we were all sleeping, the Michigan Supreme court recently issued an important decision on jury pools. The MSC suggests that jury selection should not consider race, sex, religion or nationality. The idea, again, is one of colorblindness, though the problem is that many groups are under-represented when a "jury of peers" is composed. What do you think of the ruling?