A Student’s Response to Concerns about Title IX Investigation Coverage
by: Benjamin Galindo
This letter reads like someone who believes SU is “just one big happy family” and not an institution. Their criticisms aren’t very well supported and it appears as though the author’s own biases (close contact with admins) are clearly showing…
Of course no journalistic work is objective and unbiased but the original piece being criticized isn’t publishing anything overtly disparaging or slanted. This is evidenced by the split feedback mentioned by one of the article’s contributors. Furthermore, the reporting of “facts” were pretty cut and dry and didn’t imply greater knowledge of the investigation process than is publicly available.
But even if the original article’s implications are critical of the SU “family”/institution, is that wrong or unjustified? Does the university want a student newspaper that produces inane drivel that SU can use for promotion material? Or does it want a student newspaper that fosters its core values of “fostering diverse perspectives” and “encouraging activism in the pursuit of justice and the common good”?
Finally, when the letter states that “we must be willing to communicate respectfully and truthfully” I assume this implies “we must be willing to communicate in ways that SU as an institution deems legitimate, respectful, civil etc.” This letter employs the politics of civility at its finest. It tells us: Fall back in line and then we’ll listen to your concerns. Don’t show emotion or you de-legitimize your cause.