That Playboy Business

LAST WEEK, The Crimson found itself in the difficult position of having to decide whether to run an advertisement asking Radcliffe students to call David Chan, a Playboy photographer, if they were interested in posing for an upcoming Playboy pictorial on "Women of the Ivy League." The Crimson decided not to run the ad because through the ad the paper would be actively helping Playboy in its exploitation of women--in effect, The Crimson would be acting as an intermediary between Playboy and the Radcliffe community, directly aiding the magazine in its procurement of models. These considerations, The Crimson decided, outweighed the usual concerns that advertisers be allowed space for any ads that are not deceptive, discriminatory or libelous.

Far from being a radical departure from earlier Crimson ad policies, this recent action is simply another example of our refusal to accept ads that we believe contribute specifically to oppression of a group or class of people. We now hold that the problem of sexism in America and elsewhere merits a scrutiny of our ad policy similar to that given--for example--racism in South Africa.

Those who argue that the Playboy ad and the subsequent pictorial would not contribute specifically to the exploitation of women have little understanding of the realities of sexism in America. The system of sexist exploitation in America is, to be sure, less clear-cut than the regimented legal and economic structure of apartheid in South Africa--the oppression, however, is no less real. As the United States government finds it increasingly difficult to politically maintain sexist legal standards, the legal barriers to women achieving full economic and social equality with men are gradually falling. In turn, sexist attitudes on the part of the media, employers, and other social groups are taking on even more importance as barriers to women's success. Playboy, of course has been at the fore of the exploitative media. To call Playboy seamy or stupid and leave it at that misses the point: Playboy uses as its biggest drawing card a highly stylized format displaying women as sex objects, and has over its lifetime done more to cement men's sexist perception of women than any other publication.

The argument that Playboy is not in itself exploitative but only contributes to exploitative attitudes shows little sensitivity toward the problems of sexism in America, where it is, in fact, the sexist attitudes that keep women from full economic, social, and political equality with men.

THE CRIMSON rejected the ad because the paper through the ad would have been aiding Playboy in its search for a pictorial that will degrade Radcliffe women and women in general, further enforcing sexist attitudes. Some people will, no doubt, object that The Crimson is being paternalistic. If the ad were to run, they will argue, Radcliffe women surely would have the ability to make an intelligent choice on whether or not to pose for a few hundred dollars. We quite agree. Our point is simply that The Crimson does not want to be party in any way to Playboy's exploitative tactics.

The Crimson will continue its general policy on political ads or policy statements by corporations. (The Crimson would, for example, accept an ad from Playboy defending its search for "Women of the Ivy League.") In addition, The Crimson will continue to accept regular advertising from Playboy and other such publications. Some people will undoubtedly protest that our decision is inconsistent because regular subscription ads contribute to sexism as much as ads soliciting models. Yet, it is not simply the degree of sexism in Mr. Chan's advertisement to which we object; rather, it is that the ad would involve The Crimson in soliciting women for a magazine that has played a major role in America's degradation of women. The argument that subscription ads solicit readers and should therefore be treated the same as Chan's ignores the distinction between the production and distribution of the magazine. Chan's ad would have influenced the editorial content of Playboy, involving The Crimson as an intermediary in the production of an exploitative pictorial; while a decision to reject Playboy subscription ads would have absolutely no effect on the content of Playboy and would in fact have no measurable effect on its circulation.

THE CRIMSON has chosen to act where it could do the most good--the decision to avoid participating in any way in the production of Playboy assures the Crimson that it will not have any influence whatsoever on the magazine's editorial content on a national level. (The idea that The Crimson could ever exert a positive influence on the content of Playboy is, of course, absurd.) On a local level, our running subscription ads from Playboy may influence a small number of people at Harvard to buy the magazine. Although it is a difficult decision, we are confident that whatever harm may be done on a local level due to the subscription ads is greatly outweigned by the harm that would come if we choose to reject all advertising from Playboy. That rejection would set a very dangerous precedent indeed, as more and more general reasons could be found to reject ads for a large number of magazines not conforming to the particular opinions of the staff of The Crimson.