In Volume 1, Issue 8 of The Rider, stories written about the LNG pipeline, campus carry and the Democratic presidential debate elicited a strong reaction within me. The main reaction eliciting inquiry is whether The Rider is interested in obtaining both sides or, indeed, multiple sides of a story.
In the article written about the LNG pipeline, only those in favor of it were quoted and referenced. This was a large, lost opportunity for The Rider to have interviewed Rebecca Moran, president of the Environmental Awareness Club, or philosophy Professor Eric Anderson, Ph.D., both of whom have very different views on the matter from those quoted and who are intensely qualified to comment on the subject. I may also add that they are very thoughtful individuals whose words would have deeply enriched the story. This is to say nothing of the protests and meetings both these great environmentalists have helped organize in opposition to the pipeline in our community.
The same could be said about campus carry: Only those against campus carry were quoted and/or referenced. Who are those in favor in leadership positions? I’m not sure. But the point of view (which is my own) that this debate illustrates, a Hegelian tragedy, can be considered. For our two most fundamental rights have come into conflict–the right to speak our minds without potential threat, and the right to defend our minds and bodies from potential threats. Is this contradiction likely to be resolved? As the butler Jeeves says in P.G. Wodehouse’s novel–the contingency is a remote one.
As for the [column] on the Democratic debate, the author writes that the Republican debate featured no discussion of serious policy issues, which is a falsehood. She then quotes one silly question asked to discredit the seriousness of the GOP debate: “What would your Secret Service code name be?” This was one out of the countless questions asked from a three-hour-long debate that involved discussion over bilateral negotiations with Russia, China, and Iran (my personal Axis of Evil), and global trade and commerce–things the author said matters to us Millennials. The author further fails to mention that both the GOP and Democratic debates referenced were hosted by the same
network: CNN.
What is outrageous about the [column],I’m sorry to have to say, is it ends without a word of justification, by stating that the Republican Party has a xenophobic agenda! This is a serious accusation and bold claim that cannot be left unjustified, even more so when it is the last sentence of the piece. I am not a Republican or conservative of any kind, but I respect intellectual and moral honesty, which, I’m also sorry to say, was absent in this [column].
May I also inquire as to what the publishing process is? Do the students employed by The Rider have final say or is this overseen by an “adviser?”
Jonathan Salinas
Psychology and philosophy alumnus
Student Government Association Senator at Large (2014-15)
