Hey readers,
This week proved to be incredibly controversial at my college. Not only were we contending with the whole newspaper expose and subsequent cover-up, but also the board of trustees released their decision concerning a much talked-about by-law regarding the status of religion and our college's leadership. First, a little backstory for those not familiar with the issue:
My college is a religious school that is openly affiliated with the Presbyterian Church, although it follows the reformed tradition. In simplest terms, this means that while the college has a religious affiliation, they do not believe that there is only one true faith or way of expressing one's beliefs, or even that you need to have religious beliefs. As I tell people on my tours, some students would say it is the most religious place they have ever been to, while others would say it is the least religious place they have ever been to. I have met everyone from devout Christians who regularly attend both church services and bible study sessions from atheists who openly declare they do not believe in any form of religion. At times, there can be tension between the two groups (see my second entry, "The Chalk Crusades"), but overall, the two get along rather harmoniously. Among religions, the student body includes Presbyterians, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs...the point is, despite its religious affiliations, the college is rather diverse and open-minded - with one notable exception.
The issue in question is the college by-law that requires that the president is "a loyal and active church member, whose life provides evidence of strong Christian faith and commitment. Such faith and commitment will be appropriately expressed by affiliation with the Presbyterian Church (USA) and active participation in the life of [the college's] Presbyterian Church." In other words, while you can practice any religion (or none at all) and be a student, professor, or staff member here, you must be a Presbyterian in order to become the college's president.
About a year ago, an alum published an open letter of sorts, calling the by-law discriminatory and arguing that it does not fit the changing face of the college. Certainly, it made sense back in the day when the campus population was 100% white male Presbyterians, but now, considering the large number of students who do not fit that mold, it was time for a change. Naturally, debate erupted (and yes, that's a pretty accurate term) following the letter, leading the board of trustees to launch a committee to investigate if the by-law, and by extension, the college's relationship to the Presbyterian church, needed to be amended or even eliminated entirely.
Fast forward to a few days ago. The board of trustees, in sum, decided to continue the college's relationship with the Presbyterian church and to keep the by-law as is. There has been a considerable amount of dissatisfaction with the decision, to put it lightly, and a petition effort has started online to get the trustees to change their minds and remove the by-law. So far, the petition has, I would estimate, close to 200 signatures, including about a half-dozen or so professors. Their main grievance, it would seem, is that the board of trustees said that there was no "significant support" to change the by-law, and so they should keep it as-is.
Now, here comes the part of my post that may cause some of you to close your browser or tab in disgust (though I hope you'll at least let me explain): I agree with the trustees' decision.
Let me explain. As regular readers of my blog hopefully know, I rarely see things in black and white, and that is the case here. I think that the trustees' reasons for keeping the by-law for the same were, at best, misguided, but I believe that the by-law should remain as-is nonetheless.
First, my issues with their decision: as I mentioned, they claim that there was not enough support to change the by-law, which is simply not the case. Admittedly, the 200 or so signatures on the petition probably should not be considered sufficient evidence - 200 people is about 1 in 9, or about 11% of the student body. While that number may seem important, I would argue that a little over 10% is not really enough to claim sufficient support. However, the results of a student survey, conducted last November, suggest that support goes beyond one petition. In that survey, only 7.7% of students believed that the president must be a committed member of the Presbyterian church, while 59.5% of students believed that there should be no religious requirement at all (for those readers who are interested, I was part of the 32.8% that said "other" - I felt that some kind of change was necessary, but not a full elimination of the by-law). By those numbers, there does indeed seem to be "sufficient support." In other words, the trustees should not have used popular support as their reason for keeping the by-law the same. This does not take into account that the trustees also consulted with alumni, staff, and professors, who may have overwhelmingly supported leaving the by-law as-is, but I do not have access to that data, so I do not factor it into my argument. All I know is that the trustees did spend a year discussing the matter from every perspective, so I know that it was more than a student decision.
For the record, I also disagree with the general message of the petition. Its tagline is "Amend the by-law. Affirm our tradition." I have two main concerns with this message. One, when the petition's creators say "amend" they seem to mean "eliminate." The only other part of the by-law in question states that the new president should be inaugurated sometime within a year of taking office, which would be all that is left after the "amendment." Second, and this gets at my reasons for siding with the trustees, "affirm our tradition" really misses the point of the by-law entirely.
Several of the students who have spoke out against the by-law believe that if the college will admit students of every faith, then the same should be true for the college's policies on the presidency. However, this is to mistakenly equate being the member of an organization with being the leader of an organization. For example, my personal experiences with religion are rather complex, as I mentioned in "The Chalk Crusades." Although I belong to the United Church of Christ, I have attended Catholic and Jewish services with my family, and although I can't say I fully understand all of their rituals, I do my best to follow them, and I respect that these institutions welcome me even if I don't know the proper response to a certain phrase or the exact wording of an important prayer. I belong to the United Church of Christ (which is not Presbyterian, for the record), which is an "open and affirming" church that welcomes everyone - atheists, agnostics, followers of other faiths - so long as they are willing to attend. In the majority of these cases, I respect that while I am welcome to participate, I am highly unlikely to ever lead these services, because these institutions demand that their leaders are committed followers of the faith, which makes sense to me.
The same is true of my college. As the grand majority of the student body knows, aside from one required religion class (which can be about any religion, really), there is no obligation to get involved with religion at all on campus. The chaplains are always willing to talk, even to those outside of their faith (we have three: Presbyterian, Catholic, and Jewish), but if you never even see them, that is perfectly okay too. At the same time, just because a student chooses to not participate in religious activities does not mean that the college itself is not religious. As a school that has an affiliation with the Presbyterian church and has been this way for almost two hundred years, the leader ought to be a follower of the faith. Many students, regardless of their opinion of the bylaw, admit that the school's Presbyterian background has a notable influence on its values, and all students would presumably agree that those values are good, as they chose to enroll here instead of any other college across the country (or even the world). To ask the college, which every student knows has a Presbyterian affiliation, to eliminate a by-law that strengthens that affiliation through its leadership would be to demand that a group change part of its core values to accomodate us. This is unfair.
In conclusion, while I think the popular support argument for keeping the bylaw is fundamentally flawed, I think that keeping the by-law was the right decision. It does mean that neither I nor many of my friends will ever able to be the college's president, but I respect that a Presbyterian school ought to have a leader who is committed to Presbyterian values, just as a Jesuit school ought to have a leader who is committed to Jesuit values (for example). I also believe that we should remember that the majority of us chose the school for its values, which have been shaped not only by the faith, but by generations of Presbyterian presidents, who, even if they practice a different form of religion than I do, have all been committed, first and foremost, to making the institution into something that we all take pride in. While the whole of the college is more than the sum of its parts, the religious part is something that has helped to create that whole, and we should not be so hasty as to remove that part because we disagree with it.
TL;DR: The trustees' reasoning for keeping the by-law lacks evidence, however the religious commitment of our leadership is an important part of the college's values, and it should not be eliminated just because we do not like it.
Cheers!
Monday, April 22, 2013
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Radio Free Conflict
Hey readers,
Short but fun announcement: I've decided that I'm going to start doing a radio show at college next semester! This isn't a 100% sure bet, but I've been thinking about it for a while now, and I think it would be pretty fun. Right now, I'm down to two or three ideas as to what the main musical focus will be.
1. Progressive rock
2. Classic rock mixed with some 80s new wave
3. Video game-related stuff
I plan on having sort of a talk-radio element too. In the case of idea 1 and 2, we'll talk about major political issues from local to international. In the case of idea 3, we'll talk about video games, cult classics, and other bits of nerdery. Either way, I do hope you'll tune in when the time comes!
Cheers!
Short but fun announcement: I've decided that I'm going to start doing a radio show at college next semester! This isn't a 100% sure bet, but I've been thinking about it for a while now, and I think it would be pretty fun. Right now, I'm down to two or three ideas as to what the main musical focus will be.
1. Progressive rock
2. Classic rock mixed with some 80s new wave
3. Video game-related stuff
I plan on having sort of a talk-radio element too. In the case of idea 1 and 2, we'll talk about major political issues from local to international. In the case of idea 3, we'll talk about video games, cult classics, and other bits of nerdery. Either way, I do hope you'll tune in when the time comes!
Cheers!
Friday, April 19, 2013
Booklust
Hey readers,
So, I took a trip to Dublin earlier this week, and...I went a little overboard. I don't mean that I drank too much at a pub or anything like that. The place I went overboard was a bookstore.
As my some of my past posts would imply, I've been studying in Copenhagen this semester, and it's been pretty great on a number of counts. However, one place where I've struggled is the lack of bookstores. There were two bookstores that offered English-language books near my school, and since the semester started, one has moved into what seems to be some kind of cramped temporary space while the main store ostensibly undergoes remodeling, while the other inexplicably vanished, like a Borders closing without the massive sale.
A note on Borders closing sales - as sad as I was to see the chain close, I made great advantage of those final days. I think on my last visit, I walked out with eight or nine new books, all of which were at least 25% off of the sticker price. It was a good day. But I digress.
See, I love bookstores - not just the act of buying books, but the act of browsing, looking at various titles, marveling at the great selection, and sometimes even going from shelf to shelf looking for that rare book that I know exists but cannot seem to find anywhere. I could sort of have this experience in Copenhagen, but the English-language selection felt rather limited and very overpriced. I'd had iBooks, which is a good source of reading, but just lacks the feel I like - both in terms of buying the book and then reading it. There are things that I like about iBooks - particularly how easy it is to highlight and make annotations, and then to find a favorite passage later on - but after three months without a proper bookstore, the online option just wasn't cutting it for me any more.
Enter Dublin. I believe I went into five different bookstores in about three days, including one or two that were obviously chains, but even better, another one or two that were obviously independent (the remaining one may have been a small chain or a Barnes and Noble offshoot, I'm not sure). The consequences of my book binge? I bought six new novels for myself, as well as a novel by an Irish author my mom really likes. These six books included a copy of James Joyce's Dubliners (I've never read it, and Dublin seems like the best possible place to buy a copy), and five different Scandinavian crime novels, my favorite genre lately. I also bought a cloth bag at one of the bookstores - these are great for transporting library books or books in general - as well as a number of leather bookmarks at the other places I visited, which my family calls "smelly bookmarks" because of the distinctive new-leather smell they have. I have no idea how I'm going to get all of these books home, since I already have about ten in my room in Denmark, but I'll make it work, even if I wind up shipping some of them home.
This brings me to the deeper nature of my booklust. Everyone's got a place where they generally feel calm and happy, and for me, that place is a bookstore or library. I have already talked about how reading has been a big part of my life since even before I was old enough to read, so I guess it's only natural that a building full of books is my sanctuary. I love the smell of used bookstores, which you only find there and in some older libraries, just as I love the smell of a new book. I love sitting down with a new, pristine paperback, and then finishing it later to find that I've left all kinds of marks and creases in the spine and on the cover in the process - I take generally good care of my books, these are just natural scars. I love starting a book with a fresh cup of coffee or tea and then looking up several minutes later to realize that I've become so enthralled with the story that I've let my drink go cold (or during the summer, that I've let the ice melt). And I especially love that feeling when I close the back cover on a finished book and feel both simultaneously happy and sad - I've reached the conclusion, but my life with the characters ends there (at least until I pick it back up again).
I try to read about six books a semester, and at least that many during the summer. This semester I have far surpassed that - between train commutes, plane rides, and quiet weekend nights in (a favorite time of mine, especially with something to drink and a good book), I'm about to finish my tenth book of the semester, not counting the four I've read for my Scandinavian Crime Fiction class that I would have likely read for fun anyway. Some think that my six book goal is too ambitious; others simply cannot believe I find the time to read that many books for fun in a semester. My secret is to keep a book at my bedside table and try to read a chapter or at least a couple of pages every night before I go to sleep - usually, at some point I get so involved in the book that I make more time for it (even if I have to push less important things like homework or sleep somewhere else).
From time to time, someone will ask me if I have a favorite genre or author, and I honestly don't. Much like listening to music or watching movies, I have a couple favorite books, for sure, but sometimes I feel like reading science fiction, other times I want a hefty non-fiction read, at still other times I want a psychological thriller. Some of my favorites defy labels - for example, Haruki Murakami's Kafka on the Shore is mystery, coming-of-age, and paranormal all in one. No matter what, my favorite book is the one that sucks me in - where the story compels me to read on, and I have to stop myself from finishing it in one sitting.
I'm going to break tradition here and end this post by asking a question, which I'll also ask on Facebook - what are some of your favorite books, and what makes you like them so much?
Cheers!
So, I took a trip to Dublin earlier this week, and...I went a little overboard. I don't mean that I drank too much at a pub or anything like that. The place I went overboard was a bookstore.
As my some of my past posts would imply, I've been studying in Copenhagen this semester, and it's been pretty great on a number of counts. However, one place where I've struggled is the lack of bookstores. There were two bookstores that offered English-language books near my school, and since the semester started, one has moved into what seems to be some kind of cramped temporary space while the main store ostensibly undergoes remodeling, while the other inexplicably vanished, like a Borders closing without the massive sale.
A note on Borders closing sales - as sad as I was to see the chain close, I made great advantage of those final days. I think on my last visit, I walked out with eight or nine new books, all of which were at least 25% off of the sticker price. It was a good day. But I digress.
See, I love bookstores - not just the act of buying books, but the act of browsing, looking at various titles, marveling at the great selection, and sometimes even going from shelf to shelf looking for that rare book that I know exists but cannot seem to find anywhere. I could sort of have this experience in Copenhagen, but the English-language selection felt rather limited and very overpriced. I'd had iBooks, which is a good source of reading, but just lacks the feel I like - both in terms of buying the book and then reading it. There are things that I like about iBooks - particularly how easy it is to highlight and make annotations, and then to find a favorite passage later on - but after three months without a proper bookstore, the online option just wasn't cutting it for me any more.
Enter Dublin. I believe I went into five different bookstores in about three days, including one or two that were obviously chains, but even better, another one or two that were obviously independent (the remaining one may have been a small chain or a Barnes and Noble offshoot, I'm not sure). The consequences of my book binge? I bought six new novels for myself, as well as a novel by an Irish author my mom really likes. These six books included a copy of James Joyce's Dubliners (I've never read it, and Dublin seems like the best possible place to buy a copy), and five different Scandinavian crime novels, my favorite genre lately. I also bought a cloth bag at one of the bookstores - these are great for transporting library books or books in general - as well as a number of leather bookmarks at the other places I visited, which my family calls "smelly bookmarks" because of the distinctive new-leather smell they have. I have no idea how I'm going to get all of these books home, since I already have about ten in my room in Denmark, but I'll make it work, even if I wind up shipping some of them home.
This brings me to the deeper nature of my booklust. Everyone's got a place where they generally feel calm and happy, and for me, that place is a bookstore or library. I have already talked about how reading has been a big part of my life since even before I was old enough to read, so I guess it's only natural that a building full of books is my sanctuary. I love the smell of used bookstores, which you only find there and in some older libraries, just as I love the smell of a new book. I love sitting down with a new, pristine paperback, and then finishing it later to find that I've left all kinds of marks and creases in the spine and on the cover in the process - I take generally good care of my books, these are just natural scars. I love starting a book with a fresh cup of coffee or tea and then looking up several minutes later to realize that I've become so enthralled with the story that I've let my drink go cold (or during the summer, that I've let the ice melt). And I especially love that feeling when I close the back cover on a finished book and feel both simultaneously happy and sad - I've reached the conclusion, but my life with the characters ends there (at least until I pick it back up again).
I try to read about six books a semester, and at least that many during the summer. This semester I have far surpassed that - between train commutes, plane rides, and quiet weekend nights in (a favorite time of mine, especially with something to drink and a good book), I'm about to finish my tenth book of the semester, not counting the four I've read for my Scandinavian Crime Fiction class that I would have likely read for fun anyway. Some think that my six book goal is too ambitious; others simply cannot believe I find the time to read that many books for fun in a semester. My secret is to keep a book at my bedside table and try to read a chapter or at least a couple of pages every night before I go to sleep - usually, at some point I get so involved in the book that I make more time for it (even if I have to push less important things like homework or sleep somewhere else).
From time to time, someone will ask me if I have a favorite genre or author, and I honestly don't. Much like listening to music or watching movies, I have a couple favorite books, for sure, but sometimes I feel like reading science fiction, other times I want a hefty non-fiction read, at still other times I want a psychological thriller. Some of my favorites defy labels - for example, Haruki Murakami's Kafka on the Shore is mystery, coming-of-age, and paranormal all in one. No matter what, my favorite book is the one that sucks me in - where the story compels me to read on, and I have to stop myself from finishing it in one sitting.
I'm going to break tradition here and end this post by asking a question, which I'll also ask on Facebook - what are some of your favorite books, and what makes you like them so much?
Cheers!
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Discretion and Censorship
Hey Readers,
I had originally planned for this to be a post about my adventures in Ireland - I'll write that soon - but I woke up this morning to an issue at my college that I felt was worth addressing.
As some of you might recall, I started this blog in part because I had some problems with my school newspaper's staff. Specifically, I was annoyed that they had taken a Facebook comment of mine and republished it on their website as an article without even asking my permission (which I would have given). So, I started the blog to more fully control what I say and to write at my leisure without any particular guidelines.
On to the issue at hand: last night, a colleague of mine wrote an op-ed piece in the college's newspaper that accused the current president and vice-president of the Student Government Association (SGA) of numerous violations of both the school's honor code and the SGA's own bylaws. I wish I could include a link to the article, but I cannot, because the editorial staff on the newspaper decided to remove the article from their website. Why? In their "frank and unbiased opinions" (quoting from their response), the claims lack evidence, which is why they didn't cover the story; furthermore, they removed it "because of the potential harm it could cause to the individuals accused."
First, I will admit my own bias, which comes from my perspective (coincidentally, the op-ed section of the paper is called "Perspectives"). I study dictatorships and zones conflict, places where, primarily, freedom of the press is often little more than a distant dream. I recently wrote a paper discussing the challenges critical reporters face in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And, as previously mentioned, I do not fully trust the editorial staff on my school paper. Like I said, I have a bias, but I'd like to think I also have some experience. Besides, this blog has never been marketed as more than my thoughts and opinions on various issues. Let's continue:
I would understand their decision if the author had made these claims without any basis or way to support them. However, this does not seem to be the case. Basic international law has an equation: Choice of fact + choice of law = choice of conclusion. In other words, you examine a piece of evidence, examine a relevant law, and then draw a conclusion from the two. The author did just that; in one example, he mentioned that both the president and vice-president ran a joint campaign, which was clear for anyone to see (they did not try to hide it), and then cites a law in the SGA code that expressly prohibits this kind of campaign except in certain circumstances (which they did not meet). In another example, he discusses how the two managed to push through a budget during a meeting, even without the quorum required for budget approval. Now, this story could be made up, but there would have been witnesses at this meeting - the claim is easily fact-checked. The newspaper's editors do not say whether or not they have done so; they simply took down the op-ed.
That decision brings me to another point; I would estimate that the paper publishes one to two controversial op-ed pieces a year. Two years ago, they published a response from a professor who referred to one recurring opinion columnist's piece as his "latest belch," and one year ago, they published an op-ed piece from a young woman who accused the majority of the student body of saying racist "(and I mean RACIST)" things on a regular basis. In the former case, the paper allowed the professor to apologize; in the latter, the piece, among others, led to an evening discussion about diversity at the college. This year, the newspaper adopted a policy of holding "talkbacks" - open, relatively informal discussions about controversial issues on campus. So, we have a newspaper that will publish some opinions and then attempt to turn controversy into beneficial discussion, but simply delete others. Given the decision between the two, I would rather have a conversation than silence.
The newspaper had already included a disclaimer that the op-ed piece did not reflect the views of its staff, and could have published the response without removing the original piece. Instead, they deleted it after already allowing it to go to press. At best, this is sloppy editorial work - either choose to run the piece or don't. At worst, this is a strange sort of cover-up that removes a critical opinion without giving it its due - if the author's claims lack basis, then show that they do, rather than just saying there isn't any evidence.
As a final note, by the time the newspaper removed the op-ed piece from its site, there was already a considerable online buzz about the claims. Many people will want them investigated rather than hushed, and the newspaper's editors will come out looking not like people who removed baseless allegations, but those who covered up the first allegations of a violation of our school's honor code, which we hold as the ultimate rule of law on campus.
Cheers!
EDIT 1: It would appear that the author does have "at least 70" pages of evidence to back his claims, however he refrained from publishing them, largely for space concerns. He is now trying to share these pages with the community through Google Docs, but it also appears that the school newspaper is actively trying to remove the evidence, too, which only adds to my concerns that something is not right here.
EDIT 2: TL;DR - The newspaper would have been perfectly justified if it had chosen to not run the op-ed piece because of questionable facts. However, to publish it and later retract it goes against the spirit of open discussion and free speech, even if it isn't explicitly against any of the college's laws.
I had originally planned for this to be a post about my adventures in Ireland - I'll write that soon - but I woke up this morning to an issue at my college that I felt was worth addressing.
As some of you might recall, I started this blog in part because I had some problems with my school newspaper's staff. Specifically, I was annoyed that they had taken a Facebook comment of mine and republished it on their website as an article without even asking my permission (which I would have given). So, I started the blog to more fully control what I say and to write at my leisure without any particular guidelines.
On to the issue at hand: last night, a colleague of mine wrote an op-ed piece in the college's newspaper that accused the current president and vice-president of the Student Government Association (SGA) of numerous violations of both the school's honor code and the SGA's own bylaws. I wish I could include a link to the article, but I cannot, because the editorial staff on the newspaper decided to remove the article from their website. Why? In their "frank and unbiased opinions" (quoting from their response), the claims lack evidence, which is why they didn't cover the story; furthermore, they removed it "because of the potential harm it could cause to the individuals accused."
First, I will admit my own bias, which comes from my perspective (coincidentally, the op-ed section of the paper is called "Perspectives"). I study dictatorships and zones conflict, places where, primarily, freedom of the press is often little more than a distant dream. I recently wrote a paper discussing the challenges critical reporters face in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And, as previously mentioned, I do not fully trust the editorial staff on my school paper. Like I said, I have a bias, but I'd like to think I also have some experience. Besides, this blog has never been marketed as more than my thoughts and opinions on various issues. Let's continue:
I would understand their decision if the author had made these claims without any basis or way to support them. However, this does not seem to be the case. Basic international law has an equation: Choice of fact + choice of law = choice of conclusion. In other words, you examine a piece of evidence, examine a relevant law, and then draw a conclusion from the two. The author did just that; in one example, he mentioned that both the president and vice-president ran a joint campaign, which was clear for anyone to see (they did not try to hide it), and then cites a law in the SGA code that expressly prohibits this kind of campaign except in certain circumstances (which they did not meet). In another example, he discusses how the two managed to push through a budget during a meeting, even without the quorum required for budget approval. Now, this story could be made up, but there would have been witnesses at this meeting - the claim is easily fact-checked. The newspaper's editors do not say whether or not they have done so; they simply took down the op-ed.
That decision brings me to another point; I would estimate that the paper publishes one to two controversial op-ed pieces a year. Two years ago, they published a response from a professor who referred to one recurring opinion columnist's piece as his "latest belch," and one year ago, they published an op-ed piece from a young woman who accused the majority of the student body of saying racist "(and I mean RACIST)" things on a regular basis. In the former case, the paper allowed the professor to apologize; in the latter, the piece, among others, led to an evening discussion about diversity at the college. This year, the newspaper adopted a policy of holding "talkbacks" - open, relatively informal discussions about controversial issues on campus. So, we have a newspaper that will publish some opinions and then attempt to turn controversy into beneficial discussion, but simply delete others. Given the decision between the two, I would rather have a conversation than silence.
The newspaper had already included a disclaimer that the op-ed piece did not reflect the views of its staff, and could have published the response without removing the original piece. Instead, they deleted it after already allowing it to go to press. At best, this is sloppy editorial work - either choose to run the piece or don't. At worst, this is a strange sort of cover-up that removes a critical opinion without giving it its due - if the author's claims lack basis, then show that they do, rather than just saying there isn't any evidence.
As a final note, by the time the newspaper removed the op-ed piece from its site, there was already a considerable online buzz about the claims. Many people will want them investigated rather than hushed, and the newspaper's editors will come out looking not like people who removed baseless allegations, but those who covered up the first allegations of a violation of our school's honor code, which we hold as the ultimate rule of law on campus.
Cheers!
EDIT 1: It would appear that the author does have "at least 70" pages of evidence to back his claims, however he refrained from publishing them, largely for space concerns. He is now trying to share these pages with the community through Google Docs, but it also appears that the school newspaper is actively trying to remove the evidence, too, which only adds to my concerns that something is not right here.
EDIT 2: TL;DR - The newspaper would have been perfectly justified if it had chosen to not run the op-ed piece because of questionable facts. However, to publish it and later retract it goes against the spirit of open discussion and free speech, even if it isn't explicitly against any of the college's laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)