EDITORIAL |
THE SPECTATOR |
| March 3, 2008 |
| The Spectator has, does, and always will strive to provide a forum in which important campus issues can be discussed. The Insights and Ideas section prints student opinion pieces and letters to the editor, both of which The Spectator feel are important to providing this forum. Recently two members of the SJI submitted a letter to the editor after the deadline. Although The Spectator often prints late letters (in the interest of ensuring that more student voices are heard), sometimes the deadlines and space available to us in producing the publication limit our freedom to do so. Last week two members of the SJI submitted a letter to the editor regarding the CEC proposal. When informed that there letter would be printed in the following weeks issue, they proceeded to print a copy of their letter and the polite e-mail from the Insights and Ideas editor that informed them that their letter would appear in the following week's issue and distribute it across campus. Ironically enough, The Spectator did manage to include their letter in the end. I, the managing editor of the Spectator, was absolutely shocked when I sat down to lunch on Friday to see the white piece of paper that accused the Spectator of having a "conflict of interests" (sic). SJI members Andrew Pape '10 and Kristy Thurell '08 produced this flier that was placed on every table in McEwen and Commons. Pape and Thurell claim that a "conflict of interests" was in play when they were informed that their letter to the editor was submitted too late to be published in last week's edition of the Spectator (February 22, 2008). They also claim that there is no reason that the letter should be deemed "late" as it was received prior to the deadline for letters to the editor. This fact is simply not true. It is clearly stated in the "Letters to the Editor Policy" that letters must be received by the staff "prior to 10 p.m. on the Monday before publication." The letter was submitted to the paper via the website and was received at 11:56 a.m. on Wednesday – a day and a half after the deadline. The Spectator policy goes on to state: "The editors reserve the right to refuse any late submissions." There was, in fact, no "conflict of interest" at play, but simply conflict of timing. As three crucial members of the staff were leaving to attend a journalism conference early Thursday morning, the Spectator was finished by Wednesday night. When Scott Bixby '11 wrote the e-mail to Pape and Thurell, informing them that their letter would be printed in this week's paper, he was simply doing his job, not stifling their voice. I was especially saddened to see the flier because I did not write our usual staff editorial this week to free up a page for Letters to the Editor. I did this specifically so that it would be possible to include this letter. As you may or may not have already noticed, the letter appeared on page 4 of the February 29, 2008 issue of the Spectator. It is true that I should have informed the authors of the letter that it would be printed in the paper, and for that I am sorry. It is understandable that Pape and Thurell would be upset to find out that their letter to the editor would not be appearing in the issue, but acting as they did works to negate the beliefs that they claim to hold. Rather than open the lines of communication with The Spectator, the writers allowed paranoia and enlivened emotion to rule their actions. It seems counterintuitive to me that students working on behalf of an organization that claims to work for open dialogue and a "safe space" on campus would react in such a way. I think it is important to examine these actions and see what can be learned from them. This situation clearly demonstrates how a small bout of miscommunication can be spun out of proportion, leading to unfounded conclusions and hurtful allegations. We are all students here, working to grow, learn, and hopefully come out of this place with a great education. It is important to take a step back from upsetting situations, before making rash decisions. If we all work together to create a community based on understanding and collaboration, the Hamilton campus can become a safe space for all. by Erin Hoener '10 |