On April 5, Brian Cunningham, a Weinberg junior, wrote a letter to the editor criticizing The Daily for printing an advertisement for a “White Trash Bash” at a Chicago bar. He wrote that the party advertised was “racism and discrimination in its purest form” and that The Daily should have decided not to publish the ad. After his name and year at the bottom of his letter, there was an editor’s note added in parentheses: “The Daily editorial staff has no say over the choice of advertisements.”

The disclaimer wasn’t true. The editor in chief has the final say on what content – including advertisements – The Daily publishes. However, Editor in Chief Abe Rakov thought the disclaimer was true at the time it was published. He had discussed the letter earlier with Forum editor David Kucinskas, after which Kucinskas added the disclaimer. “When I told him to do that, I didn’t know I had say in ads. So it was ignorance on my part,” Rakov said. “It was incorrect, but I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone.”

So if the editor in chief can make an honest mistake as to what The Daily’s policy on ads is, then I figured it was worth looking through how controversial ads have been traditionally handled at the paper.

Stacia Campbell is the general manager of Students Publishing Co., the organization that oversees The Daily. “It’s really important that students have the final say in the newspaper,” Campbell said.

When an ad with controversial content or subject matter comes to The Daily, the protocol is that the student business manager and the editor in chief make the decision whether to print the ad or not. Campbell said that if these two students want to discuss the issue in an open forum, they could discuss the ad with the Board of Publications, the Students Publishing Co.s advisory board that meets once a month.

“Ultimately, the editor in chief is responsible for content,”Campbell said.

The decision to stop an ad does not happen often, which is probably why Rakov did not know about the policy. Ryan Wenzel, the former editor in chief, said he did not think they pulled an ad during his year in the position. “Content of advertising came up a few times between me and Stacia, and she reminded me we have a right to call her or someone from the advertising department if we come across an ad that’s distasteful.”

Rakov said he decided not to print a retraction of the disclaimer because once he discovered he was wrong, it was already a week after the publication. “I don’t think it was productive then,” Rakov said. “I think everyone would say, ‘What? I don’t remember that.'”

So even if you don’t remember it, I hope this explanation of how The Daily decides what to do with controversial ads was helpful.