2000 — The Brunswickan, University of New Brunswick (from the filing cabinets).
The African Students Union (ASU) at the University of New Brunswick was no stranger to organizing events. Like many student groups today, they relied on The Brunswickan to help promote their initiatives through advertisements in the student newspaper. But in the fall of 2000, what should have been a routine transaction escalated into a controversy that left ASU leaders questioning whether they were being deliberately targeted.
It began with an advertisement, one that ASU had carefully crafted and submitted to The Brunswickan for publication on October 27 and November 3. But when the first ad appeared in print, something was very off — it had been altered. Graphics that ASU did not own or approve had been added without their consent. Concerned, ASU executives immediately contacted The Brunswickan’s Advertising Manager, Charles Goguen, making it explicitly clear that the November 3 ad should remain unchanged.
….The ad was modified yet again!
Frustration turned to absolute disbelief. On November 24, ASU submitted another advertisement, expecting it to be printed as intended. Instead, the ad was buried in the classifieds — stripping it of the visibility they expected. Regardless, the ASU did not intend for it to land in the classifieds, and when they pressed for answers, The Brunswickan blamed it on a “error of omission.”
A final opportunity for correction came with the December 1 issue. This time, the ad never appeared at all!
At this point, ASU were completely exhausted, losing all patience. Vice President Joseph Luca drafted a formal complaint to The Brunswickan and the UNB student union. His letter did more than just highlight the pattern of mishandling; it asked the critical question. Are we being singled out here?
The Brunswickan’s response came in the form of an apology from Editor-in-Chief Cindy Brown.
Written to Moses Wekasa, she says,
“Dear Mr. Wekasa,
I am writing in regard to an ad published in The Brunswickan on October 27th of 2000. I would like to apologize on behalf of The Brunswickan for the publication of this ad.
At the time the letter was published, I was currently Managing Editor, and although that does not make me fully responsible for the content (final approval is passed by the Editor-in-Chief of such ads), I believe I should have examined all ads more closely in order to ensure they would not insult any person or group in any way.
I am now Editor-in-Chief, and I will personally assure that your group, or any other, will never have to deal with the embarrassment of ads such as this again. I believe The Brunswickan has high standards to uphold, and I will strive to make sure a situation such as this does not reoccur.
I am deeply sorry for the inconvenience and hurt this ad has caused.
Cindy Bown
Editor in Chief
The Brunswickan
cc: Kay Nandlall”
Brown acknowledged the errors, assured ASU that they would not be repeated, and took personal responsibility. But for ASU, the apology was not quite enough.
This appeared not as an isolated incident, but as a pattern. And, while The Brunswickan framed it as a series of unfortunate mistakes, ASU members couldn’t move on from the feeling of betrayal. Whether it was negligence or discrimination, the outcome remained the same: a student organization had been repeatedly disrespected, their concerns dismissed, and their rightful place in the campus community undermined.
Joseph Wilfred John FitzPatrick III, previous Editor-in-Chief, wrote after reviewing Brown’s letter on 16 May, 2001,
“Hey Cindy,
Don’t get pissed at me for all of the markings. I’ve written this just in case I miss you later.
Overall, the markings I’ve made only serve to make the letter a little less personal, and make it seem like there is more cohesiveness to the Bruns. I believe that in cases like this one, we should apologize (acknowledging that there is a problem, what it is, that it was a mistake, and that we will see to it that it does not occur again) in a manner that does not give away the internal flux of the organization or the fact that we have no real policy on way too many things, but in the manner I’ve spelled out in the brackets earlier in this sentence.
I think that your letter (1) puts too much of the responsibility on your shoulders and the fact that the mistake totally went over our heads, (2) does not make clear that we understand what the problem is — sounds a little bit like we’re apologizing because we have to, (3) does not sound like it’s coming from the whole organization.”
The ASU scandal was a lesson in accountability — a shocking reminder of the level of power student groups and organizations can hold over student representation. For The Brunswickan, it was a pivotal moment that cemented our responsibility as student journalists to confront stereotypes, challenge bias, and fight for the voices of marginalized students — not against.
