In its nearly century-long history, the Aggie has had its share of controversies and scandals. Some of these are catalogued in different places on the wiki (mostly in the pages for individual people), but this page serves to organize them all under one heading for informative purposes.
Days before the UCD pepper spray incident, weekly columnist Medha Sridha received a lot of criticism for her piece entitled "Jungle Fever" that was published on November 15, 2011. Following the overwhelming public response to Sridha's racist generalizations, The California Aggie's Editorial Board announced that they would require all staff members to participate in diversity training.
"Jungle Fever" is one of the most-commented articles on theaggie.org with 127 comments.
The Rise of The Girly Men
On January 22, 2010, The California Aggie published an opinion column entitled "The Rise of the Girly Men" that some found incredibly offensive and discriminatory. Those who found the column offensive described it as racist, homophobic, transphobic, and sexist.
After receiving many critical pieces of feedback, the Aggie retracted the column using the following explanation:
"The column made multiple insensitive comments, offending a significant portion of the UC Davis community."
The retraction: http://theaggie.org/article/column-rise-of-the-girly-men
On January 28, 2010, Tiffany Lew, the author of the offending article, issued an apology.
The apology: http://theaggie.org/article/column-apologies
The original opinion:
Rise of the girly men by Tiffany Lew After witnessing way too many pink shirts, emotionally-intense conversations and over-the-top reactions, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of guys these days are girlier than girls themselves (or at least girlier than me - and I'm not even a tomboy). This is a sad, sad fact. Now don't jump to the conclusion that my negative reaction toward this … hmm, "trend," means I'm homophobic. I'm not. (I mean, I do have gay friends and … I enjoy watching "The Ellen Show.") At least open gays are set with their sexuality. They know who they are and they've left no room for confusion. The lines are clear-cut. On the other hand, girly-men/emo boys/metro sexuals (or whatever label of choice you slap upon straight men who behave in an effeminate manner) just leave me super confused. Guy? Girl? Or a newly invented in-between sex? (Well, I consider that transgender, but that's another topic.) Trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'll admit many of the guys I know are Asian and thus they're statistically and genetically destined to be predisposed with more estrogen than any other race. (That's my theory, at least.) But still, biology can only go so far. I'm pretty sure the epidemic goes far beyond the boundaries of race. (It's easy to guarantee over 50 percent of the white guys working at Urban Outfitters are the aforementioned girly men.) So whatever happened to the old saying, "girls will be girls and boys will be boys?" Apparently, a more accurate saying these days would be "girls will be girls and boys … will also be girls." This is an epidemic we've got to fix, but before we can do so, we've got to spot the symptoms - the stages one goes through. Here go the "girly men/emo boys/metro sexual" characteristics: First things first: Appearance. They're super nit-picky. The "part my hair 20 times, gloss my face, wax-my-eyebrows-then-scrub-my t-zone" (if you're a guy who isn't quite sure what that is, then props to you) type of clean. After all this scrubbing and rubbing, they throw on a pink Lacoste shirt (collar popped up). Mandatory first step: fulfilled. The amount of time this all consumes ultimately means you're anywhere from 30 minutes to three hours late to a get-together, reunion, date, you name it. A great difficulty for girly-men is being prompt - there are just way too many angles you can pose in front of a mirror. And yes, in the process, you're holding the girl up. Forget the whole classic "girl applying hours of makeup and making the guy wait" scenario; it's now role-reversal. I'm afraid you're officially one stop closer to all-together ditching your manhood. Actually, there might not even be that said get-together/reunion/date to get to because another characteristic of the girly man is extreme indecisiveness. Here I was thinking how indecisive I am when I can't figure out which pair of shoes to buy at the mall. With a girly- man, the choices of making the trip to the mall, buying the shoe online or friggin' just not buying it all will cause a huge dilemma - I'm talking about a month-long dilemma with hours of discussion and debate. These hours of discussion and debate ultimately turn into hours of "pmsing," mood swings and general emotional turmoil, which are the last and likely most dominate traits of girly men. I must say extreme emotional attunement and sensitivity are keys to the girly men. During these moments of distress, remember: Do not send them random, hilarious YouTube videos or attempt light conversation - trust me, there are dire consequences. Singing sumo wrestlers just aren't funny when one is focused on his distress over which shoe to buy. When it comes down to it, girly men just don't do much for us. Sure, it's nice and even preferable when guys appear tidy and are somewhat sensitive, but when these traits are enhanced tenfold, they might as well just be girls. I'm hoping this girly men trend slowly disappears just as the 1920s lesbian feminists did. But at least the lesbian feminists had a legit social cause. TIFFANY LEW was beginning to gain some hope for masculine Asian pop stars when John Park, a soulful (and seemingly straight) American Idol contestant made it to Hollywood. That hope was quickly abandoned when a graphic YouTube video of him dancing and singing to "Single Ladies" popped up. Contact her at email@example.com.
The Hamilton - Kennedy Affair
The Aggie published a correction for plagiarism on May 10, 2007. Eddie Lee, who had just been selected by the Campus Media Board as the next year's Editor in Chief, was fired from his sports staff writer position for pulling material from a press release without citing it. This is generally not considered egregious, and typically this type of offense only merits a warning in major newspapers such as The Sacramento Bee. But Aggie writers had been fired for plagiarism in the past (see below), so it had to have been known that being fired was a possible consequence for plagiarism.
Five days later, 31 members of the Aggie staff submitted a letter calling for the resignation of Editor in Chief Peter Hamilton and Campus Editor Talia Kennedy. The letter alleged that training for the incoming Editor in Chief Eddie Lee had been designed unfairly and illogically, causing him to err in the original plagiarized article. The letter demanded an explanation for unnecessary expenses incurred by Kennedy and Hamilton at a recent awards ceremony. The letter also said that Kennedy and Hamilton had an ongoing relationship that was negatively affecting the newsroom atmosphere, concluding that Hamilton no longer had the Aggie's best interests in mind.
Hamilton and Kennedy responded with a letter denying all the accusations and demanding the resignation of all 31 signatories of the first letter.
The Campus Media Board decided to put Hamilton and Kennedy on administrative leave for the remainder of the year and appointed Managing Editor Marion Everidge as interim Editor in Chief. Everidge immediately reinstated Lee as a staff member and allowed him to continue his training to become Editor in Chief for the upcoming school year.
According to rumors at the time, Hamilton locked the staff out of the website and changed the lock on the Editor in Chief's office. Kennedy created a sockpuppet account, AnonAggie, on the wiki in September and accused former Copy Chief Kacey Coburn of an unrequited romantic desire for Hamilton which led to her calls for his resignation.
The Aggie staff regrouped after the departure of Hamilton and Kennedy and the basement was much less volatile the following year.
Due to poor management and the general downturn in the economic fortunes of the newspaper industry, the Aggie has experienced several years of deficit.
At the close of the 2006-07 school year, the deficit stood at $117,566.94 (please provide a source for this information). The Aggie's finances are the responsibility of three members of the staff: the Editor in Chief, the Business Manager, and the Advertising Manager. These positions were held by Peter Hamilton, Mia Szmuch, and Christina Chin, respectively.
Despite the deficit, Christina Chin was again selected as Advertising Manager for the 2007-08 school year by incoming Editor in Chief Eddie Lee and incoming Managing Editor Caitlin Kelly-Sneed.
No information is currently available on previous deficit years.
Anne Clarke's Waiter Rule
Weekly columnist Anne Clarke was relieved from her contract on April 26, 2006 for a column the week before called "The Waiter Rule." The column had many similarities to an April 14 USA Today article "CEOs say how you treat a waiter can predict a lot about character." Hilariously, USA Today's article was also plagiarized. The public explanation for why she was terminated was printed on the front page of the April 24th issue, but does not appear to be online.
The Ousting of Daniel Stone
Daniel Stone had served as Editor in Chief at the Aggie for just over seven months before the other members of the editorial board authored a letter expressing their disapproval of Stone's actions. They alleged that Stone secretly altered the wording and meaning of an editorial that had been written about the Celeste Rose case so that it was less critical of Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef. Stone was accused by the board of lying about the incident when confronted.
In an email to the staff (an excerpt of which was published in the paper), Stone admitted to changing the editorial. The following week he submitted his resignation in a letter also published in the paper.
May 11th, 2005
- Conservative columnist Ian Watson is released from The California Aggie for allegedly plagiarizing another columnist's article. According to Ryan P. Fuller, editor at the time, Watson's article Maybe not so dark "bore a striking resemblance to" The Daily Standard columnist Johnathon V. Last's "Case For The Empire".
Ryan P. Fuller sent an email to the Aggie staff explaining the termination.
Dear staff, As some of you may have heard, I had to remove Ian Watson from the staff today. I've included the editor's note that is running on tomorrow's front page. The similarity between his column "Maybe not so dark" and Jonathan V. Last's column, "The Case for the Empire" (May 16, 2002, The Daily Standard) is highly noticable. Several people have compared the two columns and agree, including The Aggie's attorney, Rochelle Wilcox. Watson admitted that he read Last's column, but that this is an arugment he has made several times. He said that he did not deliberately lift anything from the article. I'm including the links for all of you to judge for yourselves. http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=3D9029 (Ian Watson's column) http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp (Jonathan Last's column) The Aggie has a zero-tolerance policy for plagiarism. The best definitition that I can give for plagiarism is claiming an idea or writing to be originally yours when it is not. Plagiarism is not just copying something verbatim, but includes emulating the structure and tone. The best way to avoid plagiarizing is to cite. Attribution is one key factor that lends credibility to news institutions. I edited Ian's column and I thought the idea of the empire (referred to as the dark side) was unique, as I had never heard of it before. He has breached my trust and that of our staff and readers. Additionally, I will be going back over Watson's work since he started working to see if there are suspect columns. Check with your editors if you are unsure about anything about what constitutes plagiarism. Best, Ryan
Ian then defended himself in the following letter:
Hello everyone, I haven't met most of you, but since Ryan's staff email went out I thought that I had might as well respond. I'll start with a little background. I have been (feel like I am coming clean with a drug addiction here or something) a total Star Wars nut for years. I have watched the movies more times than I can remember, I played the card game (think Magic) when I was younger, I have read many of the expanded universe books, and played countless hours of the video games (the MMORPG included... obsessively for a stint). This may seem like pointless information, but it is not because I have made this similar argument many, many times. See, I am a person that takes the conservative and often contrary position on many things just for kicks. Taking the Empire's side is just another example of this. Me and my geeky friends would ramble on about this constantly because it is a constant point of debate on the online game Star Wars Galaxies (because players can be both sides... look at the forums if you don't believe me). I have made this argument many, many times. To further drive this point home, I read a lot of Objectivist literature (which is probably worse than being a Star Wars nut), and argue with folks about it constantly. Star Wars is a fun debating point amongst them (again, look it up if you don't believe me). The problem with the "Empire is Good" argument, especially with regards to possible plagiarism, are as follows: if you stick to the movies (which I did) there is very little source material to work from, the argument must be made by comparing actual results of the governmental systems (further numbering down the possible ways to approach the topic), and you need to do it in a chronological fashion (otherwise it makes very little sense... you can't put the chicken before the egg). Consequently there is very little room for variation if you are making the same argument. I wanted to write on the topic because I am a "down with the rabble" sort of guy (heh, should have used that) and the new movie is coming out. The complaints that Ryan had with the column, and my responses, are as follows. 1. Similarity of structure: you have to make the point chronologically, otherwise the reader will get confused. You also have to dismiss imagery, a key point that Lucas drives home (constantly... borderline Scarlet Letterish). You can not explain the empire properly without showing that it is a direct contrast to what was before it; before there was a republic but chaos and death, after there was an empire that provided peace and stability. You have to explain the republic, the power behind the republic as being undemocratic, the change, and what resulted. It was not plagiarism, just the structure the argument had to follow. Stupid problem for me to get in? Yes. Plagiarism? No. 2. The quotations were the same: This results from limited source material. Governmental structures and their effectiveness are only mentioned a couple of times in the movies. In order (off the top of my head)... Queen Amadala has one good quote in the first movie, Senator Palpatine has two rather vague quotes (didn't use his because... well he is an evil nasty dude and it hurts the argument), Tarkin has a couple of lines early in the first movie (more on that later), and then... Vader (Anakin had one in the first movie, but it was the same point that Amadala made). Of course I am going to use the best possible quote the movie has to offer to support my point, the fact that we use the same very limited source material doesn't make it plagiarism. 3. Similarity of adjectives: the ones that I can see are "meritocracy", "patrol the skies", "divine right", and "regional governors". The regional governors is a direct quote from GM Tarkin in Episode IV. Divine right and meritocracy are frequently debating points amongst objectivist folks... but that patrol the skies /collect taxes part? Well... This is where I admit that I did read that column. About three years ago. Because I talk about this sort of stuff all the time, and I really liked the column, I must have internalized it more than I had thought. His column is thrown around all the time on SW Galaxies forums, and his wording is used frequently. I guess I just picked up his phrases without thinking about it. For that I am sorry, I should have looked up his column again to make sure that the similarities were not so pronounced (and they are in some parts, I admit that). I should have picked a topic where the argument could be made from a variety of standpoints, with only one logical mold for it I put myself into a bad situation. But I want to reiterate this point: I did not copy his column. I wrote this column in the car and the quotes were (sad, I know) off the top of my head and later confirmed with the DVD's that I own. I was stunned when a friend emailed me the DS column, which was shortly followed up by a phone call from Ryan. I was disappointed that I got fired before I was even allowed to speak in my own defense, regardless of whether it mattered or not the illusion would have been nice. The editors probably made the right decision anyway, excuses are just excuses after all. Anyway, what would be the purpose of my plagiarism to begin with? We make little to no money, I got tons of grief for what I wrote on a daily basis, and I have no intentions of making this a career (peanut gallery: thank god). I did this for fun, as soon as it was no longer fun I would have just quit. I wrote on Star Wars because... it was fun and I know an unhealthy amount about the topic. Again, plagiarism is inexcusable and I understand the editors reasons for canning me, but I'd at least like this to be seen as a me getting into a stupid situation rather than stealing someone's work. Anyway, it was nice working with you all. And by working with you all I mean thanks editors and copy folks for changing my might of's to might have's, explaining to me what a semicolon actually is, offering 4 times to give me additional copies of the Aggie Style book, and giving me a chance to write. It was fun while it lasted. Ryan: Can I get a letter published to respond to my firing? It'll be nice, I swear. Ian Watson Fired California Aggie Columnist firstname.lastname@example.org ps: please don't pick apart the problems with my defense, I know it was stupid, I'm sorry, let me get fired in peace [[and if this is the second time you got this email, sorry... I hate Geckomail]]
Ian Watson's public reply was published on May 12, 2005.
May 2nd, 2005
- Responding to accusations from R4 Recycling, former ASUCD President Kalen Galleger, and others suggesting The California Aggie is overprinted, Editor-in-Chief Ryan P. Fuller issues a statement refusing to recognize any legislation on the issue by the ASUCD. On May 5th, the ASUCD passed a resolution urging on-campus printings to reduce excess waste.
The California Aggie recently refered Student Judicial Affairs to students BrentLaabs and Chad Van Schoelandt for "misappropriating" copies of the newspaper. Laabs and Van Schoelandt were conducting a study on whether or not the Aggie is overprinted. For more information, refer to California Aggie Printing.
Finals Week 2004
- The California Aggie ceases its tradition of spoof editions. The spoof editions were an Aggie tradition, albeit a controversial one. Most notably in 2002, when it depicted then-ASUCD President Tiqula "Black Caesar" Bledsoe being assassinated by the ASUCD. The 2003 spoof was noticably more mild in content. It was finally killed off in 2004 by Editor-in-Chief Ryan P. Fuller, who attributes the decision to "missed deadlines" and "objectionable content". No word as to whether or not it will return for the 2005-06 season.
March 10, 2004
- Features columnist Arturo Garcia, writer of Sex and the University, is released from The California Aggie for allegedly plagiarizing another columnist's article. According to Andrew Whelan, editor at the time, Garcia's article I wish you knew "borrowed without citation the tone and ideas of a piece originally printed in The Massachusetts Daily Collegian in November 2003, titled What she doesn't know will kill you." The Aggie also took Garcia's column off from its webpage so it can not be read later in comparison. Daniel Stone replaced Garcia's columnist position.
March 7, 2003
April 23, 1999
- "Another Dimentian", a comic strip in The California Aggie, depicts a missile striking the Ethnic Studies program. Many people decry the strip to be racist and in poor taste, including from the Provost and Chancellor. Editor-in-Chief Sara Raley issues a front page apology the following Tuesday. The cartoon is removed from the website and the staff members received diversity training. Detailed here.
Jonah Ptak, the strip's author, felt his strip had been misinterpreted. His argument can be found here. http://www.dateline.ucdavis.edu/050799/DL_aggiecartoon2.html
2005-05-11 14:05:19 The Aggie didnt cease the tradition of the spoof editions entirely. Ryan Fuller chose not to do one that year due to various reasons, none of which include the "backlash." If it was due to the backlash of the 2002 edition, then the one in 2003 would never have happened. —MattJojola
Yeah, I'd say the spoof in 02 was more of a controversy (racist charges) — not the stopping of spoofs. We should just put that one instead?
Yeah, i'd talk about how Fitz nearly got fired for that specific one and not generalize the entire spoof edition in its entirety.-MattJojola
- Well, he did say "No word yet on whether the 2005-2006 editor in chief will bring the spoof back to life." -GeorgeLewis
According to that article, his reasons for pulling are due to "missed deadlines" and "objectionable content". I think that suggests that he wasn't too interested in generating the kind of controversy the spoof edition generally comes with. Unless he offers a more detailed explanation, which he doesn't necessarily owe us, I think the original listing stands - JesseSingh
Ryan Fuller does not make decisions regarding the Aggie for the 2005-2006 school year or for any year beyond this year one for that matter. The incoming editor in chief (in our case...Daniel Stone) will make the decision to go with a spoof or not this June. I don't get the controversy.-MattJojola
2005-05-11 17:47:20 I believe there is controversy because it was stupid to kill the spoof...even for one year. —GeorgeLewis
2005-05-11 20:05:25 Well, other than it being a Freedom of Speech issue, it also reflects on the integrity of the paper. Because it generated a modicum of controversy in 2002 (that nobody cares about anymore), it had its balls cut off the next year and was finally put to sleep in '04. Maybe it'll return in '05, who knows? But I think (and others seem to agree) that ending a 33-year old tradition is definitely a controversial decision. —JesseSingh
2005-05-11 22:21:30 "The staff members received diversity training" - wtf, does this sound really sinister to anybody else? —KenjiYamada
2005-05-12 00:51:02 I purposely emphasized that because I thought that seemed like such a feckless solution to the situation. It's such a corporate thing to do. It reminded me of "The Office". :) —JesseSingh
2005-05-12 04:03:54 The "most notable" part of the '02 controversy was NOT the Tiqula Bledsoe depiction. Not by a long shot. If you don't know what I'm talking about... oh well. —ElvinLee
I wasn't, actually. And the actual status of the information is unclear, so I will leave it at "if you don't know what I'm talking about..." - ElvinLee
2005-05-13 02:22:43 Does anyone know if Watson's "Letter to the Editor" in yesterday's Aggie was edited by him from his very long letter? Or was it edited by the Aggie? I know they reserve the right to make edits for spatial reasons. —JesseSingh
2005-06-29 13:35:06 I wrote two letters in, the long one I sent to the staff. I also sent in a 200 word one that was published. —IanWatson
2006-02-03 00:35:52 i think it's time Stone gets his own no-confidence vote —ApolloStumpy
2006-02-06 09:28:08 I think they should re-form the Aggie as a Wiki. Then they can revert a few times, everyone gets their say, it dies down and no lasting damage is done. Would save a lot of paper too! —SteveDavison
2006-02-06 22:01:13 OMG I totally called it! —ApolloStumpy
2006-02-06 23:00:05 I was going to write a heated letter to the editor, I might now write a mellowed-out one, but on Sunday an Aggie friend told me there would be some news about Daniel Stone Monday. That could've meant only one thing. The real irony of the situation is that if Stone was worried about getting a letter of recommendation, he might have just killed it. —KarlMogel
2006-02-07 00:48:54 Maybe Chancellor Vanderhoef can find him a job —ApolloStumpy
2006-02-13 10:34:13 That letter to the editorial board about Dan Stone was really bitchy. The only mistake he really made was to crumble under the pressure of the other editors. I'm sure it was a mistake, but kind of a minor one. Really, it is the editor-in-chief's ultimate decision on what goes and what doesn't until he's unseated ... and I mean unseated, not told to resign. Plus, what B.S. is it that they wanted the editorial printed since it obviously wasn't a consensus? Whoever wrote that letter was on a bigger power trip than I Dan Stone would have been. —Saul
2006-02-15 08:53:00 So what the hell is going on with this? sorry if i've missed it, but has there been any official explanation from the Aggie about the Stone brouhaha? The only thing I've seen is that Stone resigned because his leadership caused "challenges"...wtf does that mean? Is the letter on the wiki authentic or not? Did Stone really change the editorial to curry favor with the chancellor? If so, how do we know he hasn't "slightly altered" every article about the chancellor, or even just influenced coverage of the chancellor? How do we know if he was on Larry's secret payroll? i think the aggie has to give some explanation to its readers how its chosen leader sold out...this to me, seems far worse than plagiarism —ApolloStumpy
Two days after the edited version ran, Stone had a short blurb about how he had edited it without the others consent, and then they ran the original editorial. —ES
That's not sufficient explanation. Readers don't know WHY he edited it...isn't that kind of relevant to the situation? If Chancellor Larry had altered personnel contracts to give himself a kickback, and then his official response was that he regrets "slightly altering" the wording of a contract, would the aggie just sit on its hands and be content with that? maybe the aggie should learn to investigate its own house before scrutinizing others'. —ApolloStumpy
Seriously, no one knows why daniel changed the editorial except for daniel. according to the ed board's letter, they think it was so he could get a letter of recommendation from teh chancellor. I've known and lived with daniel for years and that does not make any sense. daniel never had a chance to get a letter from the chancellor either before or after this editorial fiasco. how could he? i feel like i know daniel very well and i cant even understand why he did it. if you look at the changes though, the changes are only to amplify the editorial board's words, not contradict them so the changes were really very minor. the real problem is that daniel denied it before admiting it. it has to do with his relationship with the ed board more than it has to do with his relationship to the chancellor —AdamGerber
Stone's alterations merely "amplified" the board's comments? they were only mad enough to fire him because he improved on their editorial without telling them? please. that's why the aggie, and not a former friend and roommate, should be asking the difficult questions. —ApolloStumpy
You asked about Daniel’s relationship with the chancellor and the answer is clear. He never had one that would have lead to a letter of rec. If Daniel was preoccupied with gaining favor with the chancellor, then maybe he wouldn’t have printed articles exposing the scandal in the first place. Also, do you really think that Daniel’s changes in the editorial were substantial enough to impress, or even come to the attention of the chancellor? Clearly, Daniel had a difference in opinion with the editorial board and he inappropriately used his authority to change their expressed opinion – he brought this all on to himself and has lost his job and reputation for it. but weather or not this was done to further his relationship with the chancellor seems like a non-issue —AdamGerber
So you're calling the entire current managing staff of the paper a bunch of liars? They quite clearly claim, that several of them were told by Stone himself about the recommendation letter. as much as I think the staff is doing a poor job of investigating this, I'd believe several of them over you...considering your argument is mainly "I never heard about it, so that must not be the case" —ApolloStumpy
No, I am not. I believe that they honestly believe that Daniel did all of this to gain favor with the chancellor – and that’s okay because its what they believe and I don’t have enough credibility to counter that. Considering what they think about Daniel, especially after having gone through this whole deal, I personally think that they are more likely to draw that conclusions that further humiliate Daniel than to seriously consider whether he was actually out for a letter of rec. I do not blame the aggie staff for anything. But, if you look at what happened, it just doesn’t fit with your question of whether he was working secretly for the chancellor or something. I was not challenging them, I was responding to you. —AdamGerber
Write an email to the new editor and tell him what you just said - readers deserve to know just a lil more about it. Maybe you'll get something more of what you're looking for Apollo. And Adam, I disagree - "Instead of holding the chancellor responsible, Stone added the phrase “university-wide” to direct blame at the entire university." That's more then a minor change, it changed the intent/point. —ES
It seems like Adam's focus is not on Daniel's actions but rather his intent. There is no evidence beyond a "he said she said" that Daniel had any personal motivation from the chancellor. the simplest theory is normally true, so i believe he just changed the article because that was an opinion he felt strongly about. Any other suggestion to his motives is just a conspiracy theory unless further evidence is provided. to suggest that the board is a credible source, is like suggesting daniel himself would be a credible source. The board seemed upset which means that they are likely to repeat rumors that are unfounded.
"He also mentioned to several editors that his father was
angry at him because he would probably not receive a letter of recommendation
from the chancellor because of The Aggie’s coverage. Our interpretation is that
Stone underhandedly made these changes out of his own self-interest, clearly
overstepping his boundaries."
the fact that no specific dates or sources are given means that this statement has almost no credibility (impossible to verify). without specifics a statement like this is clearly another claim and definatley not evidence of anything.—MattHh
I can't comment too much on the incident...but I will say that it's a little strange that you call our investigation "poor," seeing as our investigation is what led to his resignation...We can't disclose further details publicly because it's a personnel issue. —BrianChen
A general principle of journalism is that you should avoid reporting on yourself when possible. —PhilipNeustrom
2006-02-15 21:47:29 I think the general principle for journalists is to not become the story...journalists report on each other all the time, when they screw up. Stone obviously screwed up and became the story. Brian: when news content has been altered, this is no longer a personnel issue...or does the Aggie have a policy of not publically discussing plagiarists and fabricators? didn't the New York Times fully investigate that guy who fabricated stories awhile back? how come that wasn't just a "personnel issue"? So has or hasn't the aggie investigated to see if Stone altered other Larry-related stories? —ApolloStumpy
2006-02-15 22:19:21 We don't publicly discuss our internal affairs because they don't really benefit the student body...We felt that what you've been told is sufficient to understand his resignation. As for stories about the chancellor or changes made to chancellor stories, I can personally assure you that Stone couldn't have done that...because I assign and edit the campus news stories. —BrianChen
2006-02-15 22:56:09 whatever. I think the aggie is a respectable paper, and that's why I expected to give a full account of what actually happened, as would be expected of any organization whose leader did something so wrong that he felt he had to resign, but more importantly, affected the organization's service to the public. I guess the real reason there is no push to give a full account because apparently few of your readers care what gets printed, and the aggie staff is apparently content with that status quo. I think it's believable Stone's love for the chancellor didn't affect anything else...but I guess we just have to take daviswiki's word for that, as opposed to a real questioning of people involved. —ApolloStumpy
2007-05-16 08:58:41 I would like to note the irony of the number of errors in the edits to this page by the staff, anyway, that is hardly a controversy or anywhere near sensationalist enough for this page —DavidPoole
2007-05-17 06:50:41 I was browsing The Aggie's archives and came across something interesting printed exactly one year ago.
"Alas, The Aggie is now in the hands of Peter Hamilton. I am incredibly better-looking than he is, yet he's stealing her away from me. Let's hope when he's writing this column next year, he'll have the same great memories and will have just as hard of a time letting go."
— Former Editor in Chief Matt Jojola in his column "Good night and good luck." Printed May 17, 2006. —Peter Ng
2007-07-05 15:13:07 The California Aggie is a great example of the lack of ASUCD Cost Control and checks and balances and ever-growing money-wasting bureaucracy at UC Davis. While many of these people spend their time hanging out on Facebook, leaving the actual work to just a few, various wrong facts and other mis-information is flagrantly published on a regular basis. The recent drama with the editor and what not was ridiculously lame and a horrible waste of student's fees. The only reason most people even pick up a copy of the Aggie is for SODUKU anyways. —UncleBob
- Technically, it's the Media Board's job to do cost control and not the ASUCD Senate, despite the fact that it's an ASUCD unit. It's something we call freedom of the press. I also believe that the Crossword is more popular than Sudoku. —BrentLaabs
- Haha, Of course you do. —UncleBob
2007-07-12 01:11:15 During Spring 2007, The Cal Aggie discontinued publications of the Campus Judicial Reports after an abrupt notice made of such fact to the Campus Judicial Board. I would add that to the list of Controversies but I do not have an exact date of the event. —AlexQuan
- The campus judicial report was restored in Fall 2007. JeremyOgul
2007-09-05 11:59:35 If only the Aggie would write about their internal drama, people actually might read the articles. —JamesSchwab
2010-01-27 18:15:52 Wow.. "Girly-Men" reaks of everything wrong with ignorant people in this society. Not only did Ms. Lew manage to be homophobic and racist, she also somehow managed to place every person who works at a single location into the same category?? To top it off, the Aggie removed the article and apologized but has done nothign further in the matter to Ms. Lew who, it seems to me, would have been indefinitely suspended or outright fired had she worked for any other new publication. Silly and ridiculous come to mind.
- Fired? If she were presenting it as a piece of investigative journalism surely, but this was an opinion column. People write offensive things all the time for The Aggie in opinion columns; can't fire her without firing everyone else. —OliviaY
- If there was any other reprimand performed against Lew besides termination, such as a write up, we will likely never know since that stuff tends to remain internal. I suppose they could throw her under a bus in order to really cover themselves, but after talking with a fellow alum about this, I realized that The Aggie may want this negative attention to increase their readership. - Paul Amnuaypayoat
2010-01-27 20:10:11 I personally liked the article. I too have a problem with men being brought up fragile and delicate (although I do not think girls should be brought up this way too much either, but I have less of a problem there), especially since my race seems to be overrun with "pretty boys." There is this one male celebrity who was called by some magazine as the man who is prettier than a woman. Yuck! However, I see no problem with someone dancing to Beyonce's Single Ladies. That song has powers... —hankim
2010-01-28 19:32:56 You know, I think the primped and vain trend among guys is a little annoying, but the way Tiffany's letter was phrased was extremely rude and obnoxious. If it weren't written as a page-long version of "lolz don't be gay, fagz!" I might agree with the general point. That said, anyone throwing a fit (I haven't seen it personally, but various comments make it sound like it's a big scandal on campus) need to chill out. If you spend 5 minutes playing online games, you'll hear stuff 100x worse. The Aggie may have been irresponsible for printing it, but IMO the way to react is simply to respond to the author via the same venue. Debunk myths, critique comparison, and reject bogus assumptions. But keep it in perspective. It's a rude, crude, over the top letter to the editor, not an Aggie-sponsored lynching of any person or any group. —TomGarberson
2010-01-28 19:56:59 How can one study when there is so much juicy gossip to learn about our school paper? I'm glad the Waggie (vet school paper) is a little more stable. —JohnathanQuigley
2010-10-04 13:57:24 RE: "The Rise of the Girly Men" There was a terrible offense committed here. One so serious that one or more people should have been fired, if not expelled. Yes, very serious indeed. However, it was not in Tiffany Lew's piece. People are free to hold silly ideas. It was not the fault of The Aggie for printing it; walk into any supermarket any day of the year and you can buy newspapers with far crazier ideas. Do not blame them for printing it. Newspapers -and universities- at their best are places for airing and discussing ideas and opinions and thus fostering the learning which grows from it. BUT, when a newspaper is wholly censored (in this case by itself) this is a crime to humanity of the highest order. Damn the censors to Hell! —SteveDavison
Mid-1990s controversies: Does anyone remember who wrote the column resulting in a public apology from the Cal Aggie to grumpy English professor and rumored former Raymond Carver buddy W. Jack Hicks? I remember really liking this dude's column, but then he got in trouble for questioning Hicks's commitment to young writers. This might also be the columnist who wrote a harrowing description of cocaine use around 1994. JohnGorenfeld