I'm a frequent critic of The Student Life's often very slanted coverage and holier-than-thou attitude, but at least this week, I have to given them some credit for avoiding these pitfalls.
- On page 2, they gave The Claremont Conservative credit for the blog post George wrote about President Gann's announcement on the endowment.
- On the editorial page, The Student Life wrote against the screening of questions by the Claremont Democrats. They write,
The members of the screening committee were not listed anywhere, nor were they made public. The only scrap of information that we heard was that the committee was composed mostly of active members of the Claremont Democrats organization. Now if the Claremont Democrats had been the hosts of the event, they would be well within their bounds to screen questions. However, it was a Pomona College event. How then did they get prominent members on the committee? And where were the Claremont Republicans to screen questions for conservative speakers like Kenneth Starr and Karl Rove? [Emphasis Added]Answer: Conservative students, long denied free speech on campus and long maligned for the views that they hold, know better than to censor questions.
They cited Associate Dean of Students Neil Gerard's email to The Student Life that said that the efforts to screen questions were to "get quality questions without providing a bullypulpit [sic] for those with an axe to grind." The etymology of that phrase, "an axe to grind," is found here and refers to someone who has an agenda. Does everyone have an agenda of some sort when they ask a question? Whether that agenda be to get to the truth or show the speaker to be a bit full of himself or both, it shouldn't be up to the question screener to surmise the intent of the question. As usual, The Claremont Conservative was first in arguing against the screening of questions.
- Rebecca Golden's article, "The Real Bias-Related Incidents Are Political," was also an eloquent appeal against the "ultra-left" on campus. She believes -- and I'm inclined to agree -- that this group is behind much of conflicts on campus. She writes,
"Views that all white males have led easy, pleasant lives; that the sponsor program isn't diverse enough and ought to be restructured or replaced; that it's ok to remove trays in the dining halls on Tuesdays without asking the student body first; and that every bias-related incident ought to turn into a lecture on recent performances at Pomona College are not and should not be the accepted norm on campus. . . . The knee-jerk, reactive wing of the liberal party that is so vocal on our campus needs to recognize that no one- themselves included- has a monopoly on Truth."Well said and thank you for calling attention to a real problem at Pomona College. I hope they don't go after you personally.