The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Submit Letters to the Editor (Volume 2, Issue 3)

Posted by iusbvision on September 25, 2006

Thank you for reading The IUSB Vision!

To submit a general letter to the editor, just add a comment below.

112 Responses to “Submit Letters to the Editor (Volume 2, Issue 3)”

  1. Jed Walls said

    You guys got your asses handed to you in the latest issue of the Preface. But the inevitable retaliation that I will recieve for pointing this out to you just highlights how your publication is NOT a place for free and open speech.

    And your blubbering retort “Buh-Buh-buh … but you’re stifling OUR free speech by not letting us talk the nasty at you!” Just goes to show your failure to even grasp the situation.

    Your purpose is promotion. You state this plainly in your mission statement, when you point out your role is to showcase clubs. As the publisher of a promotion magazine myself, I am painfully aware of the limitations I have placed upon MYSELF.

    And they are thus: you cannot promote and report at the same time. As a publisher with more experience, and accredited experience, I hope you will take this to heart.

    Jarrod, you once denied my club access to your newspaper (at cost to my grade point average) and told me “If you are interested in learning how to run a successful club newspaper, I may be willing to discuss this matter with you if time permits.”

    Do you consider your publication to be a newspaper?

    I have no recourse but to consider your publication a tool that promotes your myths and advocates your ideas. I cannot call that campus life. I call that YOUR campus life, which is hardly representative.

    Jed Walls, MLS Student

  2. Craig Chamberlin said

    Jed,

    May I point you to what Andrew filmer said on another post:

    However, I would like to add that any quick critic should bring both articles on the issue to IUSB Security and ask them to contact the individuals involved and ask them which one breached their privacy. If you get an answer, I think you will be most surprised by it.

    Just because the Preface doesn’t believe they breached the privacy of these individuals doesn’t mean they didn’t. I understand the attempt to maintain journalistic integrity, but if no one else is at risk because it was a secluded incident then the victim of the alleged crime has the right to have everyone else mind their own business, including the Preface and other off-campus publications. Words are powerful, and they should be chosen to be used carefully.

    Sounds like good news headline though, doesn’t it? The Preface thought so…

    If one of my friends got raped, and it was a secluded incident where no one else was at risk (which is why an alert was not issued may I remind you), then if she (the victim) wanted it not disclosed and everyone else to mind their own business – do you think I’d tell her “Too bad, I can publish what I want, it’s freedom of speech, get over it.”

    Reality kicks in hard, doesn’t it?

    Why do you think we didn’t cover it?

    Campus security handled it professionally, it was taken care of, there were no facts to report other than an allegation (which I can report allegations all day if you’d like). Why not let the victim move on with their life? Thats right… because it’s a good headline.

    I’m not denying the Preface isn’t allowed to publish it, I’m just suggesting they treat the victim with a little more respect than their own headlines.

    As for the personal attacks towards the Vision not maintaining Journalistic integrity, it is to be expected. The “integrity” of the Preface clearly shows in its repeated attempts to disprove us as a newspaper, publish personal attacks towards a Judicial council member and “adopt” various “ideas” from the so-called “non-newspaper” the Vision.

    Need I go on?

    I enjoyed the personal attacks though, by the way, and I realize we are on the losing side of this argument. After all, it is a moral argument, not a legal argument. Legally, the Preface has the right, but morally, does it? It’s a good question, of course, because morality in media is all but lost, I should expect no different.

  3. Rachel Custer said

    Having the right to do something doesn’t necessarily mean it IS right to do it.

  4. Andrew Filmer said

    Well, maybe my last comment wasn’t my last say on this issue after all.

    Jed Walls – in reference to the first sentence of your letter, well, if you have to resort to that kind of language in arguing a serious issue, I am in no doubt as to the likely quality of your publication. A promotion magazine, was it? Please don’t wave that in my face imagining that as some sort of proof that you are correct. I have an honors degree in journalism, and have published internationally.

    As Craig has mentioned, this is a moral, not a legal issue. Legally, one likely has the right to publish something akin to Playboy. That doesn’t make it the right thing to do here on campus, where one hopes that the ideals of journalism do not sell out to the real world where yellow journalism is very much alive and kicking.

  5. Rachel Custer said

    Lol…”you got your asses handed to you.” Excellent thesis sentence for a letter to the editor, Jed. Have you by any chance taken W231?

    You know, Jed, having seen the train wreck you made of the Preface last year, I kind of feel like as long as you disapprove of what we are doing, we are probably doing a pretty good job and fulfilling our objectives. So I guess, in a way, you actually influence the way I do my job here on the Vision. I think WWJD (What Would Jed Do?) And then I do the exact opposite). It’s worked fairly well.

    Anyway, thanks for your letter…I can always use a good chuckle.

  6. Rachel Custer said

    Oops, forgot to add…

    Jed, you mention all the changes the Preface has made this year. Interesting how many of those changes originated in OUR publication. If the Preface is such a paragon of perfect journalism, then why do they feel the need to actually take whole articles (including titles) from us?

  7. Me said

    Wow Jed…you just got your ass handed to you!

  8. Me said

    Oh…I also like this brilliant quote from you.

    “But the inevitable retaliation that I will recieve for pointing this out to you just highlights how your publication is NOT a place for free and open speech”

    What the heck does that mean. If someone disagree with your opinion and states it, they are against free speach? Your right (dripping sarcasm)…free speach is letting you take your popshot at the Vision and then just sitting down and making them taking it. Nice freedom.

    I always have found your hatred of the Vision over the past 2 years amusing. Its funny because if it were not such a threat to you and the Preface you would not even waste your time. Everytime I see your name pop up in the blog or in the Preface it makes me smile, because I know the success of the Vision is still eating you up inside. (this is where your post goes saying “no it doesn’t” )

    Sleep well!!!

  9. Andrew said

    Hey Jed;

    Could you elaborate on the following: “Jarrod, you once denied my club access to your newspaper (at cost to my grade point average) and told me “If you are interested in learning how to run a successful club newspaper, I may be willing to discuss this matter with you if time permits.””?

    THANKS!~!

    Also, you should have kept Kinsey in the Preface.

  10. Andrew Filmer said

    I would like to add to Craig’s comment – it is the privacy of both individuals that is at stake, at least until a legal judgement is in place. The person filing the charge/complaint, as well as the one accused.

  11. Rachel Custer said

    Andrew,

    Excellent point. At this point, any assault is alleged, and an allegation like this can ruin a young man’s life as surely as a rape can hurt a young woman. Both parties need time to work this situation out without the possibility of their names leaking out to the campus.

    Imagine this, everyone who might disagree….

    Both that young woman and that young man are still (presumably) walking around campus. Imagine that woman or that man sitting in class, or at the Grille, or in the SAC, listening to people all around them discuss, in the way that college students discuss things (which I think we can all admit, can be pretty negative and judgmental), this horrible alleged incident. Imagine that woman listening to people condemn her, or that man listening to people condemn him. They can’t stick up for themselves without bringing further problems upon themselves. All they can do is listen. The sad thing is, this is an entirely possible scenario, and the people who are talking, are talking from a stance of misinformation. Thanks to the Preface, they have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about. All they know is “Oh my goodness, there’s been an alleged rape on campus.” Those rumors that are flying, it’s entirely possible that one or both of the people involved has heard them and been hurt by them.

    How does promoting a scenario like this even approach integrity?

  12. Jarrod Brigham said

    I will address that point tonight. I will give Jed his chance to state his side of the facts. I have every single email he sent me about our denial of his club. We cannot deny a request if the request is never sent.

  13. Andrew said

    Hey Jerrod, where were you for this thread?

    [https://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2006/11/06/nyt-admits-it-was-wrong-to-leak-terror-surveillance-program/]

  14. Andrew said

    For that matter, where are you for -this- thread?

  15. Rachel Custer said

    Yeah, Jarrod, it’s not like you have school, a family, work, several extracurricular activities, and an active church life to keep you busy.

  16. Ryan said

    Rachel, you don’t think its entirely reasonable to raise awareness of such a thing on campus? Their names were not given. Its far better to remind people to be safe, protect themselves, and be aware then to sweep it under the rug. The Preface cited a set of security measures being taken by the University due to this event. It seems they felt it was significant enough to act on.

  17. Rachel Custer said

    I think if the Preface was going to print anything, they should have at least printed reliable facts. It is the same supposed issue you guys jumped all over Chuck for, but the Preface has failed to print important facts in their article, and NO ONE has said a word, as far as I know.

    I have mixed feelings on the actual reporting of the incident. I can see the point of several sides to this. But my main problem with the Preface’s story is, if you’re going to print something, print something accurate.

  18. Craig Chamberlin said

    Ryan,

    Awareness of what? Security said no one was at risk. If you are asking Rachel if the Preface had no right to raise awareness about the private information of the two individuals involved, then my answer is yes. The private information in this case is the traumatizing experience the victim had to go through.

    There was nothing to report at all, the campus security said there was no one at risk, the situation was under control, and it had been completely addressed and resolved, but it certainly makes for a wonderful headline at the expense of those who may very well still be on campus.

    If they want to write an article raising awareness and prevention of rape on college campuses, there is no problem with that, but leave the private information of the victim out of it and leave the responsibility of determining whether students are at risk or not to those who were hired to do so.

  19. Craig Chamberlin said

    Also,

    The Preface was not holding the administration responsible, this is inaccurate. They would only be holding them responsible if the administration failed to respond adequately, which they did not. So the Preface’s defense on holding the administration accountable is a duck-out.

  20. Craig Chamberlin said

    Ugh,

    Replace the word responsible above to accountable.

  21. Andrew said

    Rachel, you’re totally right.

    It’s not like Jerrod decided he wanted to be editor of a paper, or anything like that. I’m just picking on him; he shouldn’t be responsible for what he prints! That would be pretty silly! Wow, if we did things like that, people could yell at Jed for printing the Kinsey report, or articles about rape on campus! That would lead to chaos, people marrying gardening tools and very probably the end of the world!

    Now (in a moment of mature reflection) I wonder: how could I have been so blind?

    I don’t know. I just don’t know, Rachel. Thankfully, you have opened my eyes with your incisive comments. I was blind, but now I see. It’s all thanks to you, Rachel. You are pretty darn amazing. I sure am glad you post on Al Gore’s internet, because he invented it for people just like you (contrary to what some LIEBERALS think, Al Gore did not invent the internet to store pornography).

  22. Craig Chamberlin said

    You know what I think this blog is missing?

    Sarcasm. :)

  23. Rachel Custer said

    Craig,

    Lol. My bad. I was attempting to make the point that while Jarrod works hard as editor of the Vision, he probably doesn’t have hours to spend posting comments on the weblog, especially if he didn’t really feel the issue was a big deal anyway.

    Ok, without the sarcasm, Andrew.

    Jarrod is very busy. If there was a complaint he felt had merit, I’m sure he would have addressed it; however, for a few people whining about Chuck (again and still), he probably doesn’t feel the need to waste his time.

  24. Andrew said

    So to you, it’s not a big deal if Chuck says something that’s not true?

  25. Craig Chamberlin said

    Andrew,

    I told you Jarrod and I were addressing it this weekend… So why would to expect Jarrod to come on and participate in the discussion?

  26. Andrew said

    Craig;

    You said ‘The original intent of the online Weblog was to offer an opportunity for anyone to argue with staff writers with whom they may disagree. Using this system, each writer can be held accountable for their viewpoint by the Vision audience.’

    You tell me, why shouldn’t I expect Jerrod to participate in this discussion?

    Is Jerrod too good for Al Gore’s Internet?

  27. Jason said

    What false information was in the Preface article Rachel…if the information was incorrect, blame campus security…it came directly from the report filed with them, and from Marty Gersey. The information posted in your story is more hersay. There was much more information about the incident that we recieved but did not print because it was hersay, and NOT in the actual report.

    Craig, if no one was at risk, why did security feel the need to install deadblots on those doors, look into improving lighting and the possibility of installing panic buttons? Murder is a secluded incident as well, are you claiming that newspapers should not print that as well?

    I simply find it baffling, or should I say shocking….either way extremely unsettling that your paper believes that an alleged report of rape on campus should not be known to students. If I was to believe this was a moral issue, I personally feel it was morally correct for me to present this information to the campus. But then again that points to the flaw of writing based on your morals: each of us has different morals and values. Objectivity. Hrm, now that one seems to have potential. I suggest you guys investigate that one.

    The statement about holding the university accountable was not a duckout. I was pointing out the fact that journalists are there to hold these people accountable in certain situations. I am aware that the security measures was done independent of the article….HOWEVER it does not negate the fact that us reporting on what happens hold those individuals accountable. We are the link between the university’s actions and the reader. If we do not report on what was done, how would they possibly know? Just like the SGA@Work column hold the student government accountable for what happens there. If we did not print that, how would an outsider know what happens, or if the minutes the SGA posted were accurate?

    The article I’m sure you refer to us taking headline and all was the President’s Pen – which was SENT TO US DIRECTLY FROM MARCUS VIGIL. That I believe is not stealing…..

    Secondly, the changes I refer to are things that were at once in the Preface – or should I say newspapers in general before. Campus News, Club Profiles, games, hrm…..your right, you must have invented those, congratulations on your brilliance. In the meantime I suggest you check out some of the back issues of the preface to find that that was all there before.

    Oh, and remember Jed is not the editor of the Preface I am.

    Craig, like I said it is all about perspective. If you are so concerned about this subject becoming a source of rumors then why does your publication continue to write about it here and in your publication? Sounds a bit hypocritical to me. I suggest you read the post I placed on you “When Freedom meets Responsibility” thread. Like I say on there, I think we should sit down like grown adults and discuss this.

  28. Andrew said

    So why did YOU take out Kinsey?

  29. Jason said

    HAHA – the heart of the matter, right?

    Despite my personal support of the column, I did not renew it for several reasons. I felt that the KINSEY CONFIDENTIAL was creating a great deal of controversy among our readers.

    My primary goal this year was to help reinstitute the Preface as an objective source for news that was accessible for all. Jed did a lot great innovative things testing the boundaries of what a newspaper can be, but I felt while it was important to push these boundaries, it should not get in the way of the newspaper’s primary purpose to inform. It seemed that the Kinsey confidential was a great source of division on the campus, and I did not want to increase readership by sensationalizing our paper, making people read it simply because there was a constroversial article in it.

    Originally we had planned a campus penned column similar to the Kinsey, but with students schedules, the idea never materialized.

    In addition I wanted to create as much room for news, and student produced work. The half page plus demanded by the size of KINSEY took up a large chunk of our publication. The Preface is run on a budget supplied by student funds, and I felt that since this information could be found online we could best use the space for students. Journalism students having as many oppurtunities to work for a newspaper is a part of our publication that is often overlooked, even by journalists here on campus. Our paper is a source to gain practical experience in the field of journalism.

    In addition it brought with it a good deal of stipulations, including the fact that we could not contractually touch a single word in the column, even if it was misspelled, we could not run ads on that page, we were obligated to print it regardless of anything (if space got tight due to a big news week, we could not cut the KINSEY), and the fact that it often times was not e-mailed to us ontime, causing a layout struggle at the last minute.

    In addition with us working this year at getting the Preface online, another factor was us not being able to post Kinsey on our site. We originally intended on just throwing up the PDF’s of our paper to which we would have to create replace kinsey.

    After reviewing all these issues, I decided against renewing it. The good news is that doesnt mean it is gone from the Preface forever… ;) or that you can’t still read it online, infact you can read many more kinsey columns at (http://www.kinseyconfidential.org/kc.html)

  30. Rachel Custer said

    Jason,

    Omitting information is the same thing, in this case, as printing false information. Also, please note that I DIDN’T SAY I don’t think the Preface should have printed the article. I said I can see it from both viewpoints. I do, however, feel kind of sorry for the girl who was possibly assaulted or the guy who was possibly wrongly accused having to hear people talk badly about them when those people know nothing about the situation.

    In my opinion, the information that the assault was reported almost a week after it allegedly happened is very important information, if you’re going to print the article. It was public information that had been printed in the South Bend Tribune; so you are claiming that the Tribune printed hearsay and didn’t have reliable sources to back it up?

    About the continued writing on this blog and in our publication, we seem to be damned if we do and damned if we don’t. If we didn’t allow comments about it on our blog, we’d be accused of censorship; since we have, we’re accused of hypocrisy.

    And regarding the articles that just happen to be so like ours: So the Preface has printed like articles in the past; the point is, when we began to print them, it was no longer printing them. Then, lo and behold, it picks them up again. When? Right after the Vision starts printing them. What a coincidence. Geez, Jason, at least show a little creativity and put a different spin on things or something.

  31. Craig Chamberlin said

    Jason,

    Within our article regarding the issue, we clearly called for an invitation to the Preface and the Journalism Department to create a Charter, your published rebuttle attacking the journalistic integrity of The Vision is a clear answer to our request. Now suddenly you want to get together and discuss it like adults? You state we have no proper journalistic capabilities and credentials, then offer up an invitation to listen to us sincerely? I apologize if I am a bit confused at this. I respect your invitation, but you denied our invitation and insulted students involved in The Vision for respectfully and professionally asking you a question. So I will have to get back to you on whether or not we will accept.

    I hope you will be understanding on this issue.

  32. Craig Chamberlin said

    Also,

    In discussing whether or not the issue should have been published, we are informing the students about the harm that can come to the alleged offender and victim by breaking private information about them into the public forum. It is a hard concept to grasp, but it is not hypocritical in the sense The Preface already “broke it out”. What we are discussing here is the decision made by The Preface to disregard the students involved by initially posting the story on a public forum. In this, we are jumping to the unknown alleged offender and victim’s defense. This is the opposite of what The Preface was doing. We are attempting to protect their privacy and the future privacy of other potential students on campus.

    Hypocricy is accusing one person of being guilty of something and doing it yourself. We have not brought private information unknown to the student body into the public arena, The Preface has, and this is what we are attempting to hold you accountable for by making reference to information you already brought into the public forum. This is not hypocricy, it is accountability.

  33. Jason said

    Oy. It seems as though your publication truly just wants to oppose the Preface. I had e-mailed Jarrod and Chuck at the beginning of the year about meeting, and never recieved a response. As for your invitation…it was in a piece on the front cover…in an article calling our handling of the story irresponsible…without speaking to us before hand. I am aware you like to take the “high road” and seem like you really want to extend the olive branch, but truly have no desire to carry through.

    I have every right to write a rubuttal, I even told Jarrod I planned to but was still interested in the charter….remember people can disagree but still be agreeable. Everything is not black and white Craig. We sat back the entire semester without making a single attack against the vision, your publication struck first with your editorial, I was merely defending our peper in ours. The comments questioning your journalistic integrity was in regards to your editorial staff preaching to the campus on what was responsible to do as a journalist. Instead of crying foul that we pointed out these facts, why not engage in a thoughtful discussion and address said issues?

    Why does everything have to be an argument on this site? Do you realize that the people that post here typically fall under two categories…those that whole heartedly share many of the same beliefs as you and want to show their support, or those that come to argue and protest your publication. That does not seem to me to be the best way to promote clubs…..but hey, its your publication.

    Rachel, can you name some stories that we “stole” from you. Honestly, I only have three things to say on this issue. 1) It is a small campus, with only a certain number of events happening, there are bound to be a number of articles that are run in both papers, not because we are “stealing” your ideas, but because both are formulated independent of each other because there are simply only so many campus events and clubs.
    2) They “Reappeared” because I felt that they were pertinent to the publication, and since I was the new editor I was able to make those changes.
    3) I hardly ever read your publication, I occassionaly read Mr. Norton and Mr. Hill’s columns because they contain intellectual thoughts, but usually become discouraged at the journalistic absecnce from most of your news articles (that Andrew Filmer though- he knows what hes talking about)

    So Craig – the ball’s in your court. Are you going to let this issue become an issue of pride that you are going to continue to fuel this fire because you are not willing to listen to another point of view? If you are going to continue to slam us because we did our job, I think you should be at least adult enough to sit down with us and chat.

    I am not going to waste anymore time arguing on this blog. I think we all have more important things to do than lecturing to a group of peopel who are unwilling to listen (and not just read).

  34. Jason said

    WHAT PUBLIC INFORMATION WAS RELEASED? You keep saying we breached privacy, but I still do not see how the individuals involved’s indentities have been compromised. If you are going to use this argument at least back it up. If you do not want to post it here in public, email me (preface@iusb.edu)

  35. Rachel Custer said

    I am not unwilling to listen to points of view that differ from mine. Listening and agreeing are two different things, as my parents repeatedly pointed out during my teenage years :). I think it’s amusing that you speak about two groups of people, those who “wholeheartedly agree” with everything we say, and those who do not. Actually, there are several of us who disagree amongst ourselves on the blog on certain issues; there are also places on the blog where those of us who disagree about certain issues can agree about others. I do think there is a lot of arguing on this blog, but I think most of it is done from a perspective of trying to learn and understand or get a point across (that’s what I’m here for, anyway). I like hearing others’ ideas, even when they disagree with mine. I think it’s interesting that we are all basically characterized as cookie-cutter conservative Christians, when there are things Craig and I, Jarrod and I, etc. disagree on both politically and regarding religion.

    I think we are doing a good job presenting a forum for everyone to voice their opinions on this blog, and people seem to enjoy posting.

    As I said, I have no wish to “oppose the Preface.” The biggest thing I have left to say on the issue is I feel you have made some very good changes to the Preface, which have made it a better publication than it was last year.

  36. Craig Chamberlin said

    Jason,

    I fail to understand how you interpreted my two posts as defining our stance against The Preface. I was merely stating facts. You are correct in your right to publish a rebuttle, I wouldn’t expect any less, however, the rebuttle was an attack towards the journalistic integrity of the Vision, and not actually a rebuttle to our claim, which was the Preface had no moral right to publish the story.

    Instead, you argued you had the legal right, and somehow the legal right gives you the moral right. It is simple, because we disagree on this issue does not me we are out “to get” the Preface. However, given that our published article wasn’t actually addressed in your rebuttle, then it is not a rebuttle. You follow? Two points were made in ours:

    1) We would like to make a Charter involving what ought and ought not be published – and we would like The Preface and the Journalism department to participate
    2) We felt it was irresponsible to publish private information, which you are failing to understand the incident itself is the private information of the two individuals involved, when there was no real tangible reason to publish it other than to make a headline.

    Your rebuttle, however, suggested you:

    1) Had the legal right to publish it (which we never stated you didn’t)
    2) Didn’t have to listen to a publication without accreditations or who consistently writes editorials (Such as the Roger Waters Article) because they do not contain any journalistic integrity. Of which you state we have no integrity because we have no accreditations.

    This isn’t a rebuttle, a rebuttle would have addressed the points we made in our article. Your article merely dodged the question and attempted discredit the foundation of The Vision instead – whether you meant too or not.

    I am more than willing to sit down and have a chat with you, I’m not overly concerned about the issue nor to I have contempt for where you are taking the Preface. To be honest, I have been greatly impressed with the improvement over this semester, mostly thanks to new management (yourself). We are not out to get The Preface, but we did expect you to respond to our questioning your publishing more professionally. After all, for being a paper who accredits itself so highly to holding the university accountable, you do not respond to accountability so well yourself. I don’t think this was too much to ask.

  37. Jason said

    Thanks for the compliments and the criticisms both of you. I am always up for some constructive criticism. Your right Craig, I suppose I did misinterpret your editorial, and I suppose you might have missed some points in mine. I meant, but perhaps did not convey that in this case I did not feel that it was a moral choice whether or not to publish this article, and upon a discussion with my editors we decided to run the story. I will be held accountable, that is true, and like Rachel pointed out the date was a vital piece of information that was left out, to which there seemed to be some controversey surrounding the whether that date was actually correct. I do agree with you that it should definately have been included.

    Like I said what one believes to be moral or immoral changes from individual to individual and what I believe was well within my moral right does not fall within your parameters of morality. For this reason I am not going to argue my values in this space.

    I do agree with a charter, but would demand the right to print whatever our editorial staff chose. Recommendations could be made but ultimately the decision would reside in our publications.

    I didnt mean to discredit your blog here…sometimes it just seems hard to communicate through these little blurbs, wait for a response, type again, repeat repeat that it become increasingly difficult for me to communicate effectively. I do think that this blog is a welcome addition to the IUSB community. I did create the blog based off this concept for the ease of updating the site. We tried the regular “website” but found it took too much time and money to pay someone to update that and organize it regularly. Having seen the success of your weblog it seemed the easiest and most cost effective way in order to get our paper online. So yes, in this case we did borrow your idea. :)

    I dont see this as a bad thing at all however, I hear we can put parts of other blogs on our blogs and vice versa.

    Okay, see this is how I would like to see things. I think that both of our publications have different and beneficial things to offer the campus. I think if we work together we can provide even more and better coverage (i.e. not covering the same stories, same features, etc.) This is just an idea, but what about two autonomous publications that worked together to cover create something greater than both separate parts? I mean look at Bloomington, they have the Daily Student and the Weekend paper, which both work together, with albeit different staffs to create a more complete picture. Both publications could retain our individuality and freedoms. We could have a little spot on both of our blogs linking to the others.

    Okay, I apologize but I will not be able to post anymore replies tonight – final projects and studying demands my attention…..I think we have made some crucial fist steps here in bridging the gaps between us, and I hope we can further continue this process.

    Jason

  38. Craig Chamberlin said

    Jason,

    I appreciate the respectful response, I can’t adequately address it either anymore tonight for the same reasons you stated above, the horrendous end of the line tests. We can discuss it again later (on or off the weblog).

  39. Sam said

    It’s “rebuttal”, editors of the IUSB Vision.

    :)

  40. Craig Chamberlin said

    You wish Sam :) We’re starting a new trend.

  41. Rachel Custer said

    Craig and Sam,

    I believe it’s actually reebuttel; check the Scrabble Dictionary.

    Jason,

    Thank you very much for your intelligent and respectful response. I think your idea of working together to make both publications stronger is a great one. I apologize if I got a little fired up and said anything disrespectful; it’s an issue I constantly deal with (no way, huh?). Thanks for your professionalism.

  42. Erkki KochKetola said

    I’m curious why the fact that Security said no one was at risk meant that no one was truly at risk. Without meaning to suggest that Marty is deliberately misleading anyone (he may genuinely believe that no one is at risk, and that the measures that have been taken by his office since the report are sufficient), I have to note that these sorts of things happen on college campuses all the time and that, because they are open to the public and having large buildings that are sparsely occupied in the early morning and in the evening, everyone is inherently incurring some degree of risk. But these often go unreported to the general population of the campus because no one wants to create the appearance that their institution is a risky place to be.

    I read the Preface’s article as an intent to spread awareness of this inherent risk and prompt greater vigilance on the part students attending this University. Because Security cannot be everywhere at once, and due to the level of staffing that they are able to maintain with their budget, they cannot prevent everything. But they don’t want to appear to be incompetent or unable to perform their duties adequately. Unfortunately, we live in a society which is very litigous and in which we are constantly pressured to maintain a hyper-vigilant stance.

    The wording of the Preface’s article may fairly be argued to have created that sort of pressure. But to suggest that running the article is inappropriate because it might possibly at some point in the indeterminate future cause someone harm raises very serious questions about the actual motive behind the criticism, because it is easily seen as frivolous. If the Vision did mean to suggest that the wording was inappropriate, then they should be prepared to admit that they, too, made a mistake and not be so ready to condemn the Preface. The Vision has had more than its fair share of articles that have been roundly and (in my opinion) legitimately criticized for their wording.

    Since you folks like the Bible so much, I think you should meditate on John 8 for awhile. Especially verses 1-11; the Pharisees asked Jesus what they should do with an adulterous woman, because the law called for her to be stoned, in order to get him to say something that they could condemn him for. Jesus replied, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”

  43. Sam said

    Don’t even get me started on the virtues of Scrabble.

    Veni, vidi, ass-kicki.

    :)

  44. Sam said

    “You wish Sam :) We’re starting a new trend.”

    I really enjoyed that. Thanks :) Ah, good old-fashioned smart humor. Never ceaseth to breaketh the iceth.

  45. Craig Chamberlin said

    *Sigh*

    Erkki,

    They can easily write an article raising awareness of the risk of rape and the prevention there-of, however, this can be done without reference to an incident non-meritous by the campus security as a threat. If you are suggesting our campus security is incompetent and cannot evaluate whether there is a risk or not, then you have far more evidence you’ll need to put behind your argument than the zero you provided.

    Thus, the incident does not contribute anything to an article raising awareness, because there is no awareness to be raised. Unless there is a risk, then what is the raised awareness? If it is raising awareness of campus rapes, this can be done without the incident quite effectively, if not more effectively.

    Erkki, you are accusing us of accusing the Preface of sin? This is silly, holding someone accountable is far from condemning them to judgement (which is what throwing the first stone means). We are not judging the Preface, we are addressig what we felt was an irresponsible decision from a paper who acclaims itself to responsibility, which is far from casting a stone. If they are suggesting they are holding others accountable, then it is silly to believe we are judging them by doing the same to them. This would imply they are casting stones at the administration as well, thus accountability becomes judgement becomes Christians inability to expect others to be accountable for their own actions, which contradicts scripture.

  46. Erkki KochKetola said

    No, Craig, the story is about the inherent risk here at IUSB, and the incident illustrates that risk. The story is not about the Preface not violating anyone’s privacy rights and not being irresponsible by running a story about the fact that a sexual assault was reported here on campus. The story is also about the Vision not being able to decide if they want to be a promotional newsletter or a serious news outlet, and not being able to decide if they really are a conservative propaganda outlet or if they actually want to do real news.

    The story, in short, is all about how the Vision is trying to manipulate the story to make themselves look good and take a cheap shot at the Preface in doing so because the editorial board (and a certain unnamed writer) is still nursing a grudge.

  47. Craig Chamberlin said

    Tell me Erkki, what is the risk here at IUSB related to this incident? If you can tell me, I’ll gladly be quiet.

  48. Craig Chamberlin said

    Erkki,

    I’m still waiting. :)

  49. Craig Chamberlin said

    Also Erkki,

    Inevitably, whether we are considered a “promotional newsletter” or a “serious news outlet” is to be determined by the student body. Whether we consider ourselves acclaimed one way or another is irrelevant. We could title ourselves if we’d like, state we are a newsletter or newspaper, we have journalistic integrity, yada yada yada… however this doesn’t really do anyone any good.

    Our articles represent what we are, some will think we are a promotional newsletter, some will think we are a professional news outlet, some will think we are whacked out conservative Christians, others will think we are respectful. I am comfortable outside the range of labeling. I know your dying to label us, but as I’ve illustrated many times on this weblog, labels are the opposite of representative and do nothing to further any real value.

    I never expected not to be labeled, it doesn’t mean I will not address it when we are. This is an industry riddled with controversy. Our first issue was 2 pages, and we published editorials and clubs. Never did we imagine it would get to where it is today, and guess what, we are enjoying it. It doesn’t mean we are not going to make mistakes, but we haven’t changed what we have been publishing since we started, what makes you think we are in an identity crisis? Just because the Preface says so?

    I, for one, do not want the Vision to adhere to an external influence of expectations regarding what is “a professional news outlet” and what is a “promotional newsletter”. We are constantly interested in publishing new and interesting things, the last thing we’d want to do is turn down a writer who wants to write something that will not be construed as “professional news” so we can maintain that image.

    Anyways, I had a few extra minutes this morning, thought I’d address that.

  50. Erkki KochKetola said

    Without meaning to distract from the issue with semantics, I’m not sure what you’re asking me, Craig. Are you asking for a risk assessment? I’m not qualified to give one. I’m just pointing out that it exists, and that I don’t think that the Preface was being irresponsible for highlighting that fact, especially when word had already gotten out about it.

    In fact, if anything, the Preface’s piece highlighted the fact that there had not been a rape on campus and that it had only been a report. Not fanning the flames, but dousing them.

  51. Erkki KochKetola said

    No, Craig, I think the Preface has a similar problem; it can’t decide whether it wants to be serious news or fluff. My perception of the Vision has very little to do with what the Preface thinks about you.

  52. Craig Chamberlin said

    Erkki,

    You said you aren’t qualified to give a risk assessment, but you stated above there was an “inherent risk here at IUSB” because of the incident.

    So what you are telling me is this, there is a risk but you are not qualified to state there is a risk.

    Okay, well, I don’t know how to respond to that.

  53. Erkki KochKetola said

    I’m not qualified to present a good assessment of that risk, but I recognize its existence.

  54. Andrew Filmer said

    Erkki,

    We share many points of view, but in this particular case I have to respectfully disagree with you. The issue of privacy is very much real news: just as the issue of wire-tapping is real news at the national level.

    If we wanted to ‘manipulate the story to make ourselves look good’, we would have published it first – which we very well could have, and in far more detail. Even the Preface in its reply has not opposed that point; it is not an issue of contention. We had no need to, nor want to, because inasfar as the journalistic status of the Vision is concerned, we have been reporting “real news” for some time now.

    I find it strange that when we expanded our coverage from clubs and societies earlier this semester no one really had a problem with it. That is, until that news coverage went into the area of accountability. I think this whole thing about whether the Vision should stick to clubs and societies is a diversion from the real issue at hand. I trust that is not an intended diversion.

    And yes, I now wait with Craig. If there is a journalistically confirmed, verified, and substantiated threat, it certainly becomes the crux of the issue.

    What risk, specifically?

  55. Craig Chamberlin said

    Yes, but Erkki, there was an inherent risk before the incident ever occurred and there has always been an inherent risk.

    The incident has no relation to the inherent risk because the inherent risk existed prior to the incident. You can’t state there was an inherent risk involving the incident just because the incident took place. There are reasons why something contributes to risk.

    Therefore, without reference to a harsh situation campus students had to go through, the inherent risk which has always existed can be easily addressed without reference to the incident that contributes nothing to the risk.

    Wordy, I know, the point is this: You cannot say there was an inherent risk then say you are unqualified to assess said risk. This merely states you are unqualified to assess whether there actually was an inherent risk.

    This is rightly so, it is the professionals responsibilty to assess whether there is an inherent risk or not. Guess what? Campus security, the professionals, assessed there was not a risk, you are questioning their assessment without basis and as you stated, without the qualifications to assess said risks.

  56. Erkki KochKetola said

    Andrew, I’ve had a problem with the Vision since it started, and my problems have only been compounded since they picked up Chuck.

    To respond to your comment, Craig, simply because campus security says something does not make it so. But this whole question of risk is a diversion (one of my own making, but still a diversion for all that) from the main issue, which was the Vision’s criticism of the Preface for violating privacy rights. As I and numerous others have pointed out here, the Preface did not violate anyone’s privacy, notwithstanding Rachel’s hypothetical scenario (which would happen without the Preface’s story; both the Vision and the Preface made note of the graffiti, which was the main source of awareness of this issue), since it did not publish any names or otherwise identify the alleged victim or her alleged assailant. That’s the last I’m saying about this issue.

  57. Craig Chamberlin said

    Erkki,

    I understand you not wanting to continue with this discussion, as it was necessary for me to point out you were stating it’s the issue’s publication was justified because others were at risk. Now you are changing your argument, stating they did not invade the students privacy. Which legally you are correct in this, but just because something is legal, does not make it ethical.

    I didn’t say what campus security stated was infallable. I was simply stating if you are suggesting others are at risk, you need to assess that risk, and not dodge the question. You do not have the qualifications, as you stated above, to make such an assessment, even though you did. This was necessary to point out. If you suggest there was a risk, you are undermining the professionals who stated there was not, and in this case, you are obligated to cite reasoning for your claim.

    As with privacy, it is not your privacy under question, which makes it easy for you to detach yourself from the issue. However, the issue of privacy comes down to this:

    1) Is or is not the situation that occurred the private information of the two involved?

    If it is, then publishing it without their consent is unethical, whether their names are published or not, the incident is their own private issue, and not the campuses. The mere publishing of the issue brings their information (the situation) onto the public forum for others to scrutinize, question and judge on the very ground they may walk daily (on campus). To worsen the issue, if said students overhear, read or evaluate said judgements or criticisms, they are unable to defend themselves because of the necessity to remain anonymous. If the administration and the campus security was irresponsible and didn’t handle the situation properly, then it is the campus’ right to know. Otherwise, it has no relevance to anyone else on campus.

    As per the grafitti, two wrongs don’t make a right Erkki. This insinuation states what the Preface printed was equally up to par to grafitti on a wall. If this is true, then it is hardly meritous to a professional publication.

  58. Craig Chamberlin said

    Also,

    I just registered for spring ’07 – I’m taking a spelling class.

    I srry 4 gamatikal err0rz.

  59. Erkki Kochketola said

    Craig:

    No private information was disclosed by the Preface. Everything that they reported was already a matter of public record. The Vision itself admitted that the South Bend Tribune ran this story well before the Preface. Yet you have not seen fit to condemn the South Bend Tribune for running this story. Why?

  60. Craig Chamberlin said

    Erkki,

    Neither should have published it, as you can see, the pertinent discussion on this post right now is regarding The Preface – so obviously I’m going to revolve my current discussion around them. They were both irresponsible.

    However, as with the privacy, apparantly you ignored my previous post:

    If it is, then publishing it without their consent is unethical, whether their names are published or not, the incident is their own private issue, and not the campuses. The mere publishing of the issue brings their information (the situation) onto the public forum for others to scrutinize, question and judge on the very ground they may walk daily (on campus). To worsen the issue, if said students overhear, read or evaluate said judgements or criticisms, they are unable to defend themselves because of the necessity to remain anonymous. If the administration and the campus security was irresponsible and didn’t handle the situation properly, then it is the campus’ right to know. Otherwise, it has no relevance to anyone else on campus.

  61. Erkki Kochketola said

    I ignored it because I thought it without merit.

  62. Rachel Custer said

    Erkki,

    Why?

  63. Jason said

    Just a quick thought here,

    Craig you wrote
    “1) Is or is not the situation that occurred the private information of the two involved?

    If it is, then publishing it without their consent is unethical, whether their names are published or not, the incident is their own private issue, and not the campuses.”

    The phrase private matter, has its own special place in the vocabulary related to rape:

    According to the 1999 United States National Crime Victimization Survey, only 39% of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement officials. The most common reason given by victims for not reporting rapes are the belief that it is a personal or private matter.

    I do not believe this is what you mean Craig.

    When it was reported to campus police it became an issue of the campus, and legally and ethically. End of story. If we “spun” the story one way or another I would agree that this would have been irresponsible but that is not the case.

    I will simply agree to disagree that this is not a “private matter.” If it was a private matter campus security would not be involved.

  64. Andrew Filmer said

    Sorry Jason, but I have to disagree. Pardon my intrusion; I understand that the reply was made to Craig, but I would like to put in my thoughts. I hope I understand the context correctly, do correct me if I am mistaken in this respect.

    1. Though 61% of assault victims do not make formal reports on their understanding that it is a personal matter, it does not mean that the remaining 39% do not have an equal right to privacy.

    2. An implication of the study, in my point of view, is that 61% feel that if they went to the police to press their rights and seek justice, they would have to give up their privacy. That perception should not be encouraged. Those making up this 61% should feel confident that they can explore legal avenues without having their case publicized (at least until it goes to trial and a judgement of law has been made). If the press did not seek to publicize their cases, the figure would be less alarming than 61%.

    In other words, lodging a complaint should not necessarily entail press coverage.

    This is of course different if the police feel that a serial offender may be on the loose, in which case it is their responsibility to approach the press and announce the danger to the community – a decision they make based on their professional experience in handling each case. The other possibility is if the press had reason to believe that the police were making unprofessional decisions in choosing not to announce what the press believed – and could prove – was indeed a danger to society.

    I was a little surprised to see this figure quoted here; recently a private concern that was mentioned to me is what would happen if someone was assaulted on campus in the future… would that person not report it, for fear of publicity?

  65. Craig Chamberlin said

    Jason,

    Andrew did a good job illustrating the difference. You are attempting to villify my motives. My argument never suggested they shouldn’t have filed the report in the first place, which is what you are illustrating. My point is they should have no public backlash for being brave enough to file the report with the police.

    The editors of the Preface encourage the public backlash, quite obviously, and the Vision does not. The philosophy still stands of the Preface as, “If it is legal, it is ethical.”

    As you suggested, they felt it was their own private information, and they feared bringing onto the public forum… hmm, I wonder why, perhaps it is because the press feels once it becomes public forum they have the ethical right to publish it. No wonder people fear taking action on emotional crimes committed against them. If no one else is in harms way, they have a right to keep the situation anonymous so they can properly deal with it.

  66. Craig Chamberlin said

    Oops

    I meant to say, “they havea aright to keep the situation private so they can properly deal with it.”

  67. Jason said

    Sigh. Craig, Craig Craig. I was not attempting to villify your motives, simply point out that the fact that it became more than a private matter when it was brought before campus police.

    I find your statement
    “The philosophy still stands of the Preface as, “If it is legal, it is ethical.””

    to be completely and utter rubbish. What you mean is that if our ethical choices do not coincide with yours, then we inevitably are incorrect. I remind you it is not illegal to publish the names of the accused- we did not. Ethically I feel that I have EVERY RIGHT to inform students on a Criminal investigation while protecting the identities of those involved – which we did. I respect your publications decisions to act as your feel you sould in this matter, and I would expect the same respect for our autonomous right to publish what WE feel is ethical.

    I feel that you are completely politicizing this event – and in affect exploiting this situation Craig – and to me that is far worse than anything you have accused us of.

    The simple fact remains – We presented the news of a criminal allegation on campus while shielding the identities of both parties involved. STOP MAKING THIS YOUR PERSONAL SELF RIGHTEOUS VENDETTA TO PROVE YOUR PUBLICATIONS SUPPOSED HIGHER MORALITY.

    Also.

    “The editors of the Preface encourage the public backlash, quite obviously, and the Vision does not.”

    We encouraged public backlash? Hardly. You stance is again based on your own private beliefs. We did not encourage or discourage any public reaction, we represented what was brought before the campus.

    Also keep in mind that there are two sides to every story, the victim and the accused. While it is journalistic convention to release the name of the accused while concealing the victim, we did not such things as to protect BOTH of their identities.

    I wasnt saying that you suggested they not file a report, I was simply challenging your phrasing and pointing out that Criminal Allegations are not – and SHOULD NOT be solely private matter. The fact that they are presented in the public forum, with public law enforcement and if eventually public courts – it IS a matter of the public.

    So let me clarify you are proclaiming yourself wiser and more ethical than all the journalistic publications in the United States, and around the world that would report a criminal allegation of rape in their newspaper or publication?

    Craig….admit it, you have no basis for this argument except your own personal conservative morals. I will not attempt to persuade you that same-sex marriages should be legalized and I dont expect you to convince me to turn my back on my own personal ethics and years of journalistic convention because you think you know better. Like I said before, your morals and what you believe may differ from what another believes, and your continued publicization of this incident goes far beyond a simple news story we ran. I encourage you to go visit teh journalism department, ask them if it is unethical to write a story on a report of alleged rape? The issues involved in reporting such alleged crimes are those of protecting identity (which we did) and those of including a bias in the article to make one party appear innocent or guilty (remember the Duke Lacrosse team? The several papers covered the event in a way in which it made the alleged victim appear as a fluezie while portraying the players as misunderstood college guys – THAT is unethical). Whether or not a report of rape should be reported is a non-issue frankly. Criminal Allegations are news and should be reported as such.

  68. Chuck Norton said

    Jason,

    The outrage, anger and borderline hatred displayed in your last post is not warranted and your overreaction to the Vision leveling an honest critique and offering a chance to take the moral high road speaks much about your state of mind when you made this post.

    You know I like you, but I am just being straight with you, your last post was a confirmation that when it comes to this particular matter, you have lost the argument.

    You are also mis-stating the Visions argument in such a way that makes it easy to attack. The Vision did not say that it was a non issue, but the way that the issue was reported, the facts that were left out, made the article cause more fear and harm than any possible good that could come from it. There are sensitive incidents that the SB Tribune does not publish on simply because no real good would come from it. I know this because one of the editors told me this directly in a conversation about publishing rape allegations and such.

    Unfortunately, your overreaction to honest criticism, and than your editorial that attacked the Vision mostly in response to an argument that the Vision never made, speaks volumes of how your editorial staff views accountability.

    All the best,

    Chuck

  69. Craig said

    Jason,

    Feel free to adhere to the ethical code of the “professionals” – I have pointed out the basis upon why it is fundamentally flawed, and have made absolutely no reference to my faith. For you to suggest my assertions are inaccurate simply because I am a Christian can only be construed as discrimination. If you believe my stance on this situation is ethically inaccurate, feel free to correct me.

    However, just because the Vision has an ethical basis upon why it didn’t publish the situation, does not mean we think we are better than you. We called into question your ethical basis, by which you defended with, “well, the professionals do it”. This is not a defense, I’m sorry to tell you.

    The Ethical code of the “supposed” professionals:
    “If it is legal to publish it, then it is ethical to publish it. Do not take the alleged victim or offender into account upon publication, even if your publication is on the very ground they walk daily. Capitalize on the event, which has no legitament journalistic, ethical or moral contribution to your readers.”

    Do you see a flaw in the ethical code you follow yet? Or are you going to follow the ethical foundation of the supposed “professionals” for the rest of your career?

    This is no vendetta, I’m sure you wish it was, because it would be a great rationalization for being called into accountability. If someone stated, “the Vision is wrong to hold the Preface accountable”, I could easily respond like you have and state, “How dare you?! We are professionals, don’t push your personal vendetta on us”

    Is this a response to their claim? That is for the readers to decide, obviously. Don’t preach accountability then respond to it stating you follow an ethical code which you cannot clearly defend. I’m not saying you do not have a right to that code, but the student body has every right to call your ethical code of journalism into question. Which thus far, you have responded with empty arguments and attacks, thus digging yourselves into a deeper hole. If you can defend your right to publish the article ethically, then I will be more than happy to secede my argument and take the issue to a close.

  70. Craig Chamberlin said

    I’ll give you a starter:

    You stated, “I was simply challenging your phrasing and pointing out that Criminal Allegations are not – and SHOULD NOT be solely private matter. ”

    In this particular case on campus, why should it not be solely a private matter?

  71. Rachel Custer said

    An interesting publication on Dartmouth’s website:

    Click to access dcujlsorokin.pdf

    This article, as near as I can see by, admittedly, a quick scan, examines both sides of the issue and makes some very good points from both sides.

    Thanks.

  72. Andrew said

    Did Chuck Norton just seriously talk about accountability? The irony is delicious.

    I’m inclined to agree with Jason. Until the Vision cleans up its own act, it has no room to talk about the Preface.

  73. Rachel Custer said

    Hmmmm…Andrew is inclined to agree with Jason. Should we be surprised? :) jk

  74. Craig Chamberlin said

    Andrew,

    What are you agreeing with them about? Our own act? We are students, whether acclaimed or accredited journalists (which is not our responsibility to self-proclaim ourselves) it doesn’t change whether IUSB students can hold an IUSB publication using IUSB student funds accountable for its proclaimed, but not defined, ethical basis of journalistic integrity it adheres too.

    Our questions are simple ones Andrew, they just keep getting avoided. Now I call upon you to answer the same question you agree with the Preface on:

    Jason stated, “I was simply challenging your phrasing and pointing out that Criminal Allegations are not – and SHOULD NOT be solely private matter. ”

    In this particular case on campus, why should it not be solely a private matter?

  75. Craig Chamberlin said

    Let me share a story:

    A man is walking down a path in the woods and comes across a house where he hears the whining of a dog in the back yard. He goes back to investigate. When he gets there, he sees a man kicking the dog causing the dog to whine.

    “Why are you kicking your dog?” he asked the man

    “Because everyone else is kicking their dogs.” he replied

    “But it isn’t right to kick your dog.” the man insisted

    “Are you suggesting everyone else is wrong?” he replied again

    The question struck the man, he thought about it, then he replied, “Well no, but in this case, kicking your dog certainly seems unjustified.”

    Offended, he states “Hey, if everyone else is kicking their dogs, then I am going to kick my dog too, and you have no right to tell me it’s the wrong thing to do.”

    The man, upset, replies to him again, “But your hurting your dog for no reason.”

    He replies, “Perhaps you should go ask others if it is okay for me to kick the dog before you criticize me for doing so.”

    The man, surprised by the response, tells him “I really don’t need to ask anyone else, in this particular instance, you clearly shouldn’t be kicking your dog. I don’t care what other people are doing right now.”

    He finally replied, “If everyone else is kicking their dogs, then they must have a good reason for it, so I’m going to continue kicking mine.”

    The man, saddened and disappointed he couldn’t get through to him, asked him a question, “Don’t you think you should find out why they are kicking their dogs before you start doing it yourself?”

    He thought for a moment, “Hmm, why would I question what everyone else is doing?”

    The man responded, “Well, how do you know if they are justified in kicking their dogs?”

    He thought again for a moment, “Well… I suppose they could be wrong, but I already have been kicking my dog for an hour.”

    The man responded, “You can always stop kicking your dog and make it right.”

    He replied, “But that would mean I was wrong to kick the dog in the first place, wouldn’t it?”

    The man replied, “Of course.”

    Finally, he stated, “I’d rather not, after all, it’s not my dog.”

    The man walked away in sadness. It is true, he had no right to impude on his business and question his justification for kicking his dog, but it just seemed like the right thing to do.

  76. Jason said

    Chuck, I think you had the most sincere and worthwhile post here. And yes, I like you too :) Yes, you are correct, I do feel passionate about this issue, and I feel that it is being exploited here, but I disagree that I have lost this argument. This weblog makes it entirely too easy to share incomplete thoughts and reactions. I do not like being called unethical by someone unqualified to judge me and my actions, especially when I sincerely feel that our publication regarded this issue in the highest ethical manner.

    Craig – as for your dog story, pardon my frankness, but that was dumb and not at all applicable. The man kicked his dog unquestioningly following others. This analogy falls short because we truly do believe in the journalist ethics set before us.

    As for yourself, have you not realized that your editorial seemed to imply the victim was lying? Is that ethical? Stating that the information we provided was not newsworthy created an implication that they were unreliable and therefore the victim’s claims too held no merit. I’m sure you did not intend this, but again that is where I said that if you are to hold yourself as a newspaper with integrity you must understand how to write – hence my aim in stating that your qualifications as a journalistic publication needed to be questioned.

    As for the holding the university accountable, I had already agreed that the university made the changes prior to the article, and like I said, if the press is not involved there would be no one to know whether or not these types of things would be done, if they could theoretically and figuratively “sweep it under the carpet” what need would there be to make these changes? I am not implying the university had wanted to do said thing in the least, I am just saying that hypothetically that is what I was refering to.

    This debate simply frustrates me and my overall feelings with your publication. I didnt mention your faith Craig, but I do feel that you are exploiting this situation for your gain.

    I have not avoided any of your questions, but as I stated earlier – once it was reported to campus police became an investigation it was no longer a private issue. I never stated that just because the professionals do it, it must be right, I’m simply saying that their is validity in our response to this incident and it is supported by decades of journalistic tradition.

    As for your latest editorial, Yes, I would like to see greater cooperation between our publications but absolutely not a binding panel that would decide what we could or could not print. I simply cannot jeopardize our constitutional rights, and seeing as how you have conducted yourselves lately I cannot truthfully say that I would like to be associated with your publication. I am done arguing about this. As I have learned by being quoted out of context in your editorial, that you would love to quote me from my unedited and emotionally laden responses in this blog, and for that matter I will not be posting here further. Congratulations Craig, you have all but succeeded in your attempt to drive apart our attempts at working together and dividing our publications. At least this experience has proven that there is only one real newspaper on campus. I stand by my staff and our ethical standards.

  77. Craig Chamberlin said

    Jason,

    I’m sorry you feel that way, the story nor my reponse to you were meant to be insulting, I asked a question, which you again avoided.

    You stated, “This analogy falls short because we truly do believe in the journalist ethics set before us.”

    Yet you do not state your ethical reasoning behind publishing the article – as I asked the simple question above. The analogy reflects this, as per the only way you can truely understand the ethical code you are following is to answer a simple question directed towards it, which was:

    You stated, “I was simply challenging your phrasing and pointing out that Criminal Allegations are not – and SHOULD NOT be solely private matter. ”

    In this particular case on campus, why should it not be solely a private matter?

    Instead of answering this simple question, you proceeded to villify my motives again, then decided you didn’t want to work with us, then decided it was my fault.

    If you and your publication are unwilling to answer, straightforwardly, a simple question calling your ethics into account, then how can you hold your ethics up as a banner of rightousness?

    I’m sorry to tell you, but if you do not understand why it was journalistically ethical for you to publish the story, then you are “The man [who] kicked his dog unquestioningly following others.”

    The illustration I stated above reflects the crux of this debate, which is you stating you have the ethical right to publish it, but not being able to defend why you have the ethical right to publish it other than “all other journalists do it”.

    As per you stating this is being exploited, it obviously wouldn’t have been had you simply answered the question of ethics brough before you in our first editorial. Perhaps, however, through stating my accusations are stating you are unethical, you are not understanding me very well. I never stated you were unethical, I was stating if you claim to be ethical, you are obligated to defend your ethics. Nothing more. This doesn’t mean I’m bashing you, it means I’m holding you accountable for your claims. I apologize if this is offensive, but this is the job of a journalist.

    If an accredited publication calls itself the paradigm of journalistic integrity, then it needs to be able to answer a simple question when it’s integrity is called into question.

    So, here I am, respectfully requesting an answer again, with a complete open mind. Put all forms of ethics, morality and logic aside for the moment and simply answer the question:

    In this particular case on campus, in your professional journalistic opinion, why should it not be solely a private matter?

    I’ve told you already, if you can answer this question, I will gladly not bring it up again.

  78. Craig Chamberlin said

    It’s important for me to acknowledge this blurb:

    I have not avoided any of your questions, but as I stated earlier – once it was reported to campus police became an investigation it was no longer a private issue. I never stated that just because the professionals do it, it must be right, I’m simply saying that their is validity in our response to this incident and it is supported by decades of journalistic tradition.

    Was this the answer to the question? Let me know if it was, it was not clear to me.

  79. Rachel Custer said

    I’ve been holding off on weighing in on this, because I have mixed feelings about the points being made by both sides.

    As a woman on campus, I understand why a campus newspaper would feel like informing other students of a possible attack on campus is necessary – to be honest, I’m not thrilled that an alleged rape took place on campus, even if it was considered to be an isolated incident. To be honest, I’m not sure there’s ever a lack of any risk if indeed someone has committed rape…it’s quite possible, even probable, they will do it again. Also, Jason raises a good point – college campuses are notorious for sweeping these things under the rug and doing nothing about them, in effect worrying more about bad publicity than what actually happened or justice for a victim or the wrongly accused. This does need to be discouraged in any way possible, and the press is one of those ways.

    However, also as a woman on campus, I can identify with the alleged victim, who can be made to feel re-victimized by the press even if the press does nothing wrong. (I’m sure the alleged attacker can feel the same way, but not being a man, it’s harder to place myself in that position, assuming we are discussing a case of a man allegedly raping a woman. I suppose if we were talking about a woman raping a man, and I was the wrongly accused, I wouldn’t be happy about the press, either.)

    It is therefore not difficult for me to justify either stance, AS LONG AS THE FACTS REPORTED ARE FULL AND CORRECT. Jason, I am not implying that facts were deliberately left out of your article, but as you have said earlier, the fact of the assault not being reported until almost a week later was not printed in your article. That seems to me to be an important point.

    After reading all the points on this thread and doing some other reading on my own, I’m going to have to say I’m not sure the Preface, by simply printing the article, was acting in an unethical way. If they had left out important details ON PURPOSE to portray a certain picture, that would be unethical. However, I doubt they did so; I don’t think Jason sits in the Preface office thinking of ways to be unethical.

    To me, as a woman on campus, knowing these things is important. However, it is equally important that I know the CORRECT information so that rumors don’t get out of control and I can know what precautions I need to take to keep myself safe. The article I posted earlier makes good points from both sides, and this is pretty much how I feel about the whole issue.

  80. Craig Chamberlin said

    In ashamed retrospect,

    I guess we needed an outside perspective, thank you for that Rachel. The torn debate between us will continued un-resolved, of course, and although I think the Preface should take a hard look into the ethical principles they bannerize – I can honestly say I do not think they did it intentionally. I also think they will not admit it might have inadvertantly affected the victims. Not to my knowledge thus far at least.

    Perhaps at this point my only suggestion is to understand why it is such a sensitive issue. In this case, many of us on the Vision staff feel it is more important, if it has been assessed no one outside the parties involved are at risk, to not publish the incident. Far too much emotional damage is at stake for the two parties potentially on campus. Perhaps the Preface can appreciate that stance. Perhaps not.

    I wish, however, they had a stronger understanding of the ethical code of journalistic integrity they follow, which probably could have saved much of the arguing above. This is why I persisted so much on the answering of the question. It wasn’t to be insulting, it was to force them to take a hard look at each circumstance as it crosses their desk, rather than adhere to the legal journalistic perspective passed down by centuries.

    Hopefully, it can be swept under the desk, I personally can easily forgive potential attacks placed towards the Vision. Unfortunately, the public damage has been done by the Preface’s editorial. Overall, these things tend to work themselves out, an on or off the record apology would be nice, but is probably asking too much :).

    I apologize to Jason if he took my assertions personally, I know it is hard not too when it is addressing ethics and principles. These are the things that make our personal worlds go around. Secondly, he was correct, as I just noticed above, that I took one of his statements out of context. In that he stated my beliefs I interpreted as my faith – for this, a terrible excuse, is a result of far too much exposure to this weblog.

    Furthermore, thank you Rachel, it is not an easy issue to resolve, but it is an important issue to indefinitely take an aggressive stance on. I stand by the Vision’s belief it shouldn’t have been published. However, through the Preface’s shakey justification for this particular situation’s publishing, I still disagree they should have published it – but as usual, it is their legal right. We would never call that into question.

    I just hope they understand their own integrity enough to defend it if something more controversial comes around. In this, I hope we’ve bettered eachother in some way.

  81. Sam said

    Rachel Custer – the glue holding everything together (once again). Now, if only she had a clue on Bill O’Reilly!

    :):):)

  82. Andrew said

    All I’m saying, Craig, is that while you continue to allow Chuck to get away with lying in your paper you are in no position to comment on another paper’s behavior.

  83. Rachel Custer said

    Sam,

    Lol. :)

  84. Sam said

    I don’t really understand what Andrew always seems to be so upset about. However, I agree with him concerning Chuck Norton.

    Every single sentence Norton types makes one cringe.

    Just above, he tears this guy Jason a new a$$hole, paragraph after paragraph, then has the nerve to sign off “all the best” (also claiming he “likes” Jason in the midst of altering his anatomy).

    You guys have a major nut-case on your hands up there. No kidding. Chuck Norton is a bonafide creep of the first order. I visited other sites at IUSB recently,and he is every bit as arrogant and insulting to EVERY SINGLE individual he comes across over the internet. No one human being could possibly be more insulting to every other creature on the planet. I consider it a genuine shame that the IUSB Vision cannot do better in terms of a news analyst.

  85. Craig Chamberlin said

    Andrew,

    I think you are now alone on that issue:

    Public Editor – The job of the public editor is to criticise the practices, standards and culture of the newspaper, to identify and examine critical errors and omissions, and to act as a liaison to the public.
    http://www.wikipedia.com (unreliable to some, so…)

    “As the readers’ representative, Mr. Calame responds to complaints and comments from the public and monitors the paper’s journalistic practices.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/calame-bio.html

    “In making the announcement, Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, described Mr. Calame as a “resident pillar of integrity and common sense” and said he would “bring a lifelong, in-his-bones sense of how a daily newspaper operates and a deep, demonstrated commitment to the highest standards of our craft.””
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/06/business/media/06public.html?ex=1165467600&en=39fa86cbecbc01ec&ei=5070

    “Byron Calame is the readers’ representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own.”
    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/index.html

    His opinions may be his own, but he is the public representative designated by the editors of the NYT, and therefore, what he says is representative of the paper. Whether the editors agree or not to this man they claimed has journalistic integrity does not change that he was designated their public representative. If I designated Rachel our public respresentative (which I’m sure she’d enjoy and I’m contemplating it, hehe) – we’d expect whatever she states to represent the paper.

    He accepts criticisms from the readers, and represents the Times’ response to said criticisms.

    I apologize, but I think you are in error to proclaim we are letting Chuck, “Flat out lie.” Correct me if I am wrong.

  86. Andrew said

    I’m not upset, Sam. It’s pretty obvious that Chuck’s misrepresenting facts in this paper, and it’s equally obvious that the editors don’t want to do anything about it. I don’t think they will do their jobs unless someone keeps complaining.

    It’s a matter of principle; nobody should be allowed to lie in print. If a paper makes a mistake, it should correct it.

  87. Craig Chamberlin said

    Sam,

    Sorry you don’t like him. :) Actually, Jason said I was being more mean than Chuck. I’m not used to that at all. He’s aggressive, no doubt.

    However, I’ve never seen him come off as a creep or insulting to me when I disagree with him. Usually I disagree with him pretty respectfully though, most people don’t. Sure I’ve had my run-ins with him, but they weren’t any different than anyone else. Usually we will end up agreeing to disagree.

  88. Andrew said

    Craig, I would be wrong if Chuck had said that the Public Editor of the NYT admitted he was wrong to support the decision to leak the SWIFT program. Chuck said that the NYT admitted it was wrong to leak the SWIFT program. I have made this point before. You never seem to get it. It’s frustrating.

    Moreover, in response to Calame’s column, Bill Keller said he still thinks he did the right thing in leaking the SWIFT program (find it here: publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=75#more-75).

    How can Calame represent the NYT if ‘Byron Calame is the readers’ representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own.’? This seems to say pretty explicitly that Calame represents the READERS of the NYT, not the NYT itself.

    Saying that someone has journalistic integrity is a far cry from saying they’re always right.

    This is pathetic, Craig. If you’re going to let Chuck say whatever he wants to, regardless of the facts, say so. At least be up front about Chuck’s status as your partisan puppet.

  89. Jason said

    Sorry guys, I should have made myself more clear, I would like to discuss this off the blog sometimes, but I am really bogged down here with homework tonight, and everytime I write one of these in a hurry I end up not saying exactly what I mean to communicate and come out sounding…half assed not full or thorough enough of a response. I reread through some of my posts and well it seems to me a) a good ole outline would have greatly been useful as my thoughts are all over the place b) a good thorugh proof-read couldnt have hurt (word of warning I’m not proofreading this post either)c) this blog is damn addicting, and once you get started it is veeeeery easy to get carried away (its much easier to slam someone in writing than face to face) and d) I vented a lot of hot air at times (as we all do). Chuck is right, my response this afternoon was unrightfully angry and accusatory. As I expressed to Andrew when I ran into him in the hallway the other day, these blogs do not seem to be the best method for me to hold a discussion. Most of the confusion seems to come from a misunderstanding of the opposing side’s point or question, and it becomes frustrating! So let me just leave you with my aplogies for my overly angered comments. I do not however, wish to discuss this issue anymore on this blog.

    I’m in some serious need of finishing projects however so I’m gonna split.

  90. Rachel Custer said

    Craig,

    I can’t wait to assume my new position (smiles mischievously and rubs hands with glee). Just kidding.

    Sam,

    To be honest, I understand where people would get that idea of Chuck by reading most of his Internet posts. However, I have personally experienced an issue where Chuck and I disagreed about an important issue regarding the Vision, and must say he was very respectful in his response to me, even offering to take me out to lunch (I still intend to take you up on that offer, Chuck, when eventually I am done with this terrible studying for finals). I think a lot of his tone is due to a feeling that people often address him initially in a very disrespectful, sometimes even downright mean manner. My guess is a lot of its due to miscommunication; I think a lot of times when people are passionate about an issue, they can sound as if they are angry (I know I do sometimes). Then Chuck responds, he feels, in kind…and it snowballs from there. It’s unfortunate, because as soon as people begin to spend more time thinking about what they are going to say next instead of listening to what others are saying, the conversation goes downhill, as does any attempt at understanding the other person’s point. I think it’s something we all need to be aware of; my thoughts are, if you attempt to go out of your way to sound kind, people will only make themselves look as if they are overreacting and being mean if they freak out on you.

    Can’t we all just get along? :)

  91. Sam said

    “His opinions may be his own, but he is the public representative designated by the editors of the NYT, and therefore, what he says is representative of the paper. Whether the editors agree or not to this man they claimed has journalistic integrity does not change that he was designated their public representative. If I designated Rachel our public respresentative (which I’m sure she’d enjoy and I’m contemplating it, hehe) – we’d expect whatever she states to represent the paper.

    He accepts criticisms from the readers, and represents the Times’ response to said criticisms.

    I apologize, but I think you are in error to proclaim we are letting Chuck, “Flat out lie.” Correct me if I am wrong.”

    Craig,

    I understand your perspective. However, I still think Chuck clearly went too far in titling his article “NYT admits…” Rather, the person hired to essentially disagree with them stated a reservation.

    The Times did NOT admit anything of the sort.

    I think this distinction goes beyond semantics. I think Chuck is guilty of blatant misrepresentation and his article should at least be edited for accuracy, such as the title.

  92. Andrew said

    Also Craig, if Chuck pisses you off he can loose his forum, so he’s got a vested interest in being civil. Take a look at his replies to “H. Scott” in this thread iusbvision.wordpress.com/2006/10/25/economy-booming-rich-paying-more-since-tax-cuts/#comments if you want to remember how he acts when he doesn’t have to worry about being polite.

    I’m not objective (I think Chuck’s a jerk), but I think Chuck’s rudeness in his replies to Scott was uncalled for. I understand that it’s hard to take even the most constructive criticisms, but learning to accept criticism with grace is part of growing up. While you give Chuck a forum for his views, you are in some sense responsible for his behavior on this blog (not necessarily for what he says, but how he says it). You owe it to yourself and your other writers to insist he conducts himself with a modicum of civility), because if he’s a jerk it reflects negatively on all of you.

  93. Rachel Custer said

    Andrew,

    I just want to let you know that I approached Chuck regarding the exact issue you have brought up. We discussed things and he was very civil, and I came away with a better understanding of his position.

    This is just to let you know, just because we do not print things regarding internal issues, it doesn’t mean they are not dealt with. I hope this can give you some satisfaction that the editors don’t just let anyone (not only Chuck) run roughshod over them; we just may not exactly flaunt our personal business. However, that doesn’t mean those issues are never addressed.

    Thanks for your comments.

  94. Chuck Norton said

    Andrew, Sam and such….

    You complain that I am rude to you, well what do you expect, you call people names, you slander people, you slandered Sandy for no reason, you call people liars and accuse people of plagiarism and in every single one of these cases you had fact ZERO on your side. In every one of these cases your only motivation was your hatred. Andrew, your stormfront comments are a prime example.

    If someone makes a real argument and tries to have a real conversation, I will treat them with the respect they deserve, but you are haters who don’t have the guts to argue fair and square…. so that is how I treat you.

    You use the tactics you do on here and than complain because you are reaping what you have sown….. cry me a river ye hypocrite.

    Now how I treat Henry is very deliberate, he and I both like rhetorical combat so we argue… and go at it pretty hard sometimes…. are you ready for this… FOR FUN… we have it out, I crush his straw man arguments (his biggest rhetorical flaw that I am trying to cure him of) and we laugh about it later when we see each other on campus. With hscott its purely entertainment and arguing with him is more fun because at least he makes some kind of argument…. unlike a certain Andrew and his dumb and boorish stormfront cracks.

    You know, there is an internet term for what people like you engage in, its called trolling. You come on here, behave like trolls with no intention to contribute and just want to stir up trouble. We all know what happens to trolls eventually…

  95. Sam said

    I recall how Chuck Norton conducted himself in his occasional discussions with H. Scott, and was utterly floored by his level of rudeness and intellectual disrespect for such an intelligent individual who obviously goes well beyond the call of duty to be polite and accommodating, almost to a fault.

  96. Chuck Norton said

    Jason,

    It took allot of guts to make that last post. I know that you are a good guy, but I gotta say man that I think that there could be some people around you who dont share your values and judgement. I could be all wrong, but that is my take for what its worth.

  97. Sam said

    “With hscott its purely entertainment and arguing with him is more fun because at least he makes some kind of argument…”

    To you, perhaps. I doubt this individual considers having to deal with such a vile creature such as yourself as “entertaining”, unless you mean to insinuate that he truly thinks you’re a complete idiot yet stops short of embarrassing you for your dumb, crass, haughty stances.

  98. Chuck Norton said

    Sam,

    Spare us your crocadile tears…. with Scott and me its deliberate and for fun, nothing more, nothing less.

    So let me ask you a question, like when are you going to post a real argument and some real refutation instead of the lies, accusations and assorted other BS you engage in? And why post anonymously with no last name and no published email like I do? If you are so proud of what you say why hide?

    Chuck Norton

  99. Sam said

    “It took allot of guts to make that last post. I know that you are a good guy, but I gotta say man that I think that there could be some people around you who dont share your values and judgement. I could be all wrong, but that is my take for what its worth.”

    Chuck Norton: not a clue of humanistic intelligence whatsoever.

  100. Sam said

    “with Scott and me its deliberate and for fun…”

    So you claim.

  101. Sam said

    “I crush his straw man arguments (his biggest rhetorical flaw that I am trying to cure him of) and we laugh about it later…”

    Keep going, Chuck.

  102. Chuck Norton said

    Sam,

    Thanks for demonstrating so quickly exactly what I just observed about you. Sometimes I wonder if you are just a conservative who is trying to make extreme leftists look bad.

    Wow, these posts are priceless.

  103. Andrew said

    Chuck.

    Every time you say I slandered Sandy, I ask you to provide some quotes. Do it this time or apologize.

    p.s.

    You are a tool.

  104. Anonymous said

    Chuck,

    Perhaps “allot” is not being flagged by your spell checker because it is indeed a word, but you should know that even though it sounds the same, it does not have the same denotation as what I believe you mean to write: “a lot”.

    I make similar errors quite often when I type quickly (e.g. your vs you’re) so I’m sympathetic, but you make this error so often it gives the impression that you really don’t know the difference. I’m sure in reality you do, but I think you should cognize your tendancy to mistake this mistake to avoid it in the future.

  105. Anonymous said

    In turn, I suppose I should at least use a spell checker myself!… I see I spelled “tendency” incorrectly above. That certainly kills my grammatical high ground ;)

  106. Craig Chamberlin said

    Andrew,

    Two things, this should pretty much clear up the issue:

    1) The Readers Representative is a Representative established by the New York Times to Represent the New York Times’ stance for the readers.

    He is a representative for the readers, not of the readers.

    2) Now that this has been clearly established, may I point you to our “Warning!”:

    “This Weblog and The IUSB Vision Contain Critical Thinking by IUSB Students. Articles may seem unpopular or offensive and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the IUSB Vision staff as a whole or any club and advertiser therein. Viewer discretion is advised.”

    Ergo, it is not our responsibility to acknowledge your claims against Chuck’s accused mis-representation. If you would like to write a letter to the editor in reponse to Chuck’s column, you are more than able too, we’ve offered this service since the beginning of the semester.

    However, it is not our obligation to publish a response to one of our own writer’s columns.

    As you have established, this isn’t a clear cut “Chuck was lying” issue. Mis-representation is a matter of opinion, therefore it does not merit a factual retraction. However, I would have no problem publishing a response to the column pointing out what you felt was mis-representation. Feel free to let me know.

  107. Craig Chamberlin said

    Jason,

    I appreciate your kind response, believe me, I understand both the addiction aspect and the power of anonymity aspect as well. :) No harm, no foul. As long as people understand it, they tend to take things posted over the internet far less critically.

  108. Craig Chamberlin said

    Sam,
    I understand where you are coming from, but if we censored our writers because of how they may possibly represent us, then we’d have a terrible publication. As you guys have stated before, you feel we need even more alternative perspectives. When we publish things contradicting our beliefs we very much have to explain and justify it to our constituents, this is representative of us as well. For us to censor Chuck, who is a student with a right to voice his opinion, simply on those same grounds that people find him aggressive and sometimes offensive gives us far too much more power than I would like and that I think editors should have.
    So I’m not inclined to do it anytime soon. Obviously, if a writer gets out of hand, this statement will be reconsidered.

  109. Andrew said

    Sure, Craig. You’re going to go to any lengths at all to avoid your responsibility. Nothing I’m going to be able to say is going to convince you to do your job. This is disgusting. I really thought you guys would at least pretend to have some integrity.

  110. Rachel Custer said

    Jason,

    I can’t say how much I respect you for making that last post. I completely understand the frustration of not having said exactly what you wanted to say, and I also understand the addiction factor (I seem to spend way too much time on here myself – I think I may just be putting off studying for finals!) But it takes a real man to admit when he feels he has crossed a line (not saying you did cross a line, just that you obviously felt that way), and I wanted to show some appreciation for that.

    I would also like to apologize if any of my posts got out of hand due to emotional responses rather than logical ones. Sometimes I should probably wait a day before I post on certain issues. But I feel like you are a stand-up guy, and my respect for you has only grown throug this thread.

    Thanks again, Jason.

  111. Craig Chamberlin said

    Andrew,

    I felt I addressed it responsibly, if you feel otherwise, feel free to disagree – but please state your reasoning as to why you believe it merits additional attention. I’m doing my best to come to a compromise with you, but unfortunately, you are reluctant too. I’m not a child, you “don’t have to put your foot down”, if I have addressed it inadequately, simply explain to me why instead of making claims such as we have no integrity and I’m not doing my job.

    This isn’t doing anything to further your point, it is merely representative of your character. If you want Chuck censored, just let everyone know instead of shirking the blame onto me. State clearly:

    “I think you should retract Chuck Norton’s article and this is why…”

    Instead of:

    “I think you should retract Chucks article and if you don’t you are not doing your job.”

    1) I gave you the option to explain publicy Chuck’s supposed mis-representation
    2) I respectfully informed you why we do not want to censor any student’s opinions. This is a dangerous muscle to flex.
    3) I told you I can respect your opinion on this issue, but opinions do not merit retractions.

    So I’m not sure what else I need to do to please you other than to give you what you want. An image just came to my head, and it was a girl screaming, “I want an oompa-loompa NOW!”. Perhaps it is relevant to this discussion.

  112. Craig Chamberlin said

    Let me share another story (I’m on a kick, this one has no relevance to our current discussion)

    The man continues down the path in the woods and he comes across another man fixing a bridge, curious, he goes over to him to ask a question.

    “Why are you fixing this bridge?” he asked

    “So people can walk over it”, the man replied.

    “Is it your job to fix the bridge?” he asked again

    The man thought for a moment, “Well no, but the bridge needed to be fixed so people could walk over it.”

    He was confused by this, “Well, you shouldn’t be fixing this bridge.”

    “Why not?” The man asked

    “Because it is not your job.” He replied

    Now confused himself, the man replied “Well, that’s true, but the bridge needs fixed. Should I not fix it just because it is not my job?”

    “Exactly.” he said

    The man pondered over this for a bit, then replied “Well, how am I to know if the bridge will get fixed by the persons who job it is to fix it? This way, if it is fixed, then the man whose job it was to fix it will surely be grateful.”

    Now frustrated, he replied, “But you are doing someone elses job, it is not your job.”

    The man pondered again, “Yes, but the job needs to be done, and since I have the time today and the man whose job it is to fix the bridge clearly does not, ought I not fix it myself?”

    Angrily, he replied to him again, “Of course not, it is clear you do not understand how the system works, when someone is hired to do something, they should do it, not you.”

    The man responded, “This is true, but the bridge needs to be fixed so people can walk over it, if I wait for he who was hired to do it, those who need to cross it will have to find another path until he can fix it. Whereas if I fix it now, those who need the bridge can use it.”

    Shocked by the man’s response, he thought about what he had said, then replied “You may be right, those who cannot cross the bridge will have to find another path, but that is the price to pay for our system. If someone is hired to fix the bridge, they should fix it, not you.”

    The man replied, earnestly “Then your system is flawed.”

    Convinced he was correct, he replied “I’m sorry, but I have to disagree, it is important to have a system which holds people accountable for their jobs, now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll have to be on my way.”

    The man stated, “Very well then, but you cannot go that way either.”

    “Why not?” he asked

    The man stated, “The bridge on that path hasn’t been fixed yet.”

    Frustrated, he turned around and headed back the direction he came. “Why can’t people do their jobs?!”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: