The St. Olaf Student Senate held a special-order discussion during their October 19 meeting prompted by criticism surrounding the October 2000 issue of the Roast, a satirical newspaper produced by St. Olaf students. The discussion concerned the regulation of organizations funded by the Campus Activities and Programming (CAP) fee, focusing specifically on The Roast and potential censorship that the Student Government Association (SGA) could require.

The discussion took on added significance due to the fact that the CAP fee will be mandatory next year.

The discussion also included questions and comments concerning if the Student Organizations Committee (SOC) should continue to fund The Roast, although no bills concerning this were considered at the meeting.

"The fact that there were no bills presented at the meeting really was for the best," SOC coordinator Jenny Klein said. "It helped us to really focus on the issue."

Klein made it clear at the beginning of the discussion that the talk was to not to decide whether The Roast should continue to receive funding. It was a discussion on how CAP fee money should be used and how many restrictions should be placed on funded organizations. The Roast is the first such organization to come under fire, and the results of the controversy will set a precedent for future regulation and censorship issues.

"The Roast has illustrated an issue that's going to reoccur on campus," Board of Regents Senator Kristin Olson said. "Funding things that are offensive to some people is a questionable thing and I don't think that this is necessarily the end of it."

The Roast came under fire from a body of students after the publication of its first issue this fall. Some students were offended by the content of the articles and by the apparent stereotypes that the articles conveyed.

"The article entitled 'Short Asian Kid Plays Frisbee, Smokes Pot' was a little too much for me," junior Pajnhiag Nengchu said. "I understand that this kid is a real guy, but when we talk about the president, we don't say 'the white president'. If there was a white guy that smokes pot, would you say 'the white guy who smokes pot'?"

Others were taken aback by the amount of profanity that occurred in the articles, and some said that they felt The Roast was singling out and insulting other organizations - organizations that are funded by the SOC as well.

"When The Roast is demeaning to other CAP fee-funded organizations, we have a problem," Senator Angie Hoganson said. "I think it would be fine if they weren't funded by public funds but, as they are, I don't like to see them poke fun at or insult other student organizations."

These criticisms were voiced in an October 16 meeting between the Senate Executive Board, The Roast editors, and Greg Struve, a former senator. Struve said that he did not believe The Roast should be funded by the CAP fee, and sought the support of senators on the executive board. He did not, however, receive enough senatorial support and there was no bill brought to the table October 19.

"There is a new bill possibly in the works, but the discussion certainly helped me see that it is a bigger issue than I originally thought," Struve said. "In my opinion a problem exists and a solution should be found, but finding a solution is becoming increasingly complex."

Luke Anderson, an executive editor of The Roast, responded to the comments made by various students, saying that the Roast is meant to be a thought and discussion-provoking paper. "Virtually every article in The Roast works on two levels," Anderson said. "First off, it's supposed to be humorous. Second, each has an underlying satirical meaning - we're attempting to comment on serious issues through humor. We're not glorifying or promoting the stereotypes that we highlight in the paper, we're mocking them."

Most senators and others involved, whether they believe that The Roast should be publicly funded or not, agreed that the issue extends far beyond one organization.

The implications of this conflict will be felt be all organizations on campus, and many stressed that the issue should not be taken lightly. "It's a slippery slope," Klein said. "When we start to impose standards on certain organizations, we set a precedent that will need to be followed."