Vol. V Issue VI: Letters To and From the Editors

opening Letter From the Editor:
Dear Readers,
Hello again and welcome to another wonderful issue of the Alati! There’s been quite a bit of controversy afoot since the publication of the last issue and hopefully the many letters to and from the editors can give you clarity and peace on this matter. There is much to be said and it is all laid out [below]. Please take the time to read through these letters. In addition to the many letters, this issue is chock full of great articles to read through, too! There were a lot of new writers and we hope to see many more articles from you all as well as more new writers! There’s great commentary on everything from KFC and Flavor Flav to the USS Cole, Israel and Palestine and, of course, Obama woes and hopes.
Something to keep your eye out for especially, though, is the latest extension to the Alati. In an effort to save money and “go green,” the Alati has launched a companion website! We will be posting what we feel are the most interesting (and of course, controversial) articles and topics and they will be open to discussion on our new blogspot! The website will have links to further reading, a place for topical discussion and even polls on current issues every week. Check it out at www.thealati.blogspot.com [thank you to those of you here!] and vote on the new website! We’d love to get every bit of feedback. You don’t have to have a membership; the blog is open for all posting (blogger/gmail members and nonmembers alike). All we ask is that
you maintain common courtesy and a level of professionalism in your posts (but you already knew that!). Look for the “read more” boxes around articles in the future and there will be a copy of the article online [here!] for your comments and thoughts!
Want to say more? Write a letter to the editor! Not enough? Well then it’s time for you to write an article! Our hope is that we can publish one issue a semester online in order to save the rainforest and all of it’s cuddly creatures and cancer cures. So, with that, I hope you enjoy this issue of the Alati.

Cheers,
Ilia Bailey, Editor-In-Chief ALATI


The following letters concern Patrick Davey's response to a letter from Dr. John:
Dear Ilia and Kate,
I am disappointed. I do not know where else to go or even exactly what to say. It has been well over a year since I have contributed to this magazine, and possibly now for good reason. The last time I expressed myself publicly in words in this particular outlet in November 2007, I started a series in which I wrote on integrity. Now I feel it is time for me to address the issue of respect.
I do not know when it became acceptable for people to lay out unfounded claims. And even worse, I do not know when it became acceptable for people to print them (but I guess that is just the media). After reading the letter to the editor from Dr. John Langton, a dear friend of mine despite the fact we are polar opposites, I began to think about the level of respect and professionalism present at Westminster College. However this one time, there are parts of his arguments with which I agree. The political science department, including Dr. Langton (whom I have taken several classes with and even tutored for) and Dr. Jefferson (who is my advisor), does an excellent job covering the breadth of political ideology both throughout history and in America.
Even though I agree on this subtle point, I am quite disappointed with how many things have been presented in the Alati and how unfounded many of the claims are. It is not only my disappointment in the Alati printing the material, but also in the authors writing them and no one else submitting anything better for publication. First, I will address the personal attacks that have flow from the pages. Dr. Langton and Patrick Davey are the first to be addressed as neither article holds up any level of respect and honor. The claims against professors that they are teaching a liberal indoctrination and stating that they dispense nonsense are absurd. Then, Dr. Langton’s reply is less than tactful. Professors should not demand superficial apologies from students for their opinions (however unfounded they may be), they should ask for explanations if they are going to ask for anything. In addition, Dr. Langton claims that a fellow student is committing slander without proof. Patrick Davey challenges the teaching style of Dr. John without ever walking through the doors of one of his classes. I thought both sides knew how to back up their opinions with realities. Why have both sides resorted to attacking each others’ character?
Next, the Alati has started unfounded attacks. As a member of Finance Committee I was offended by the cartoon in the last issue in which we were portrayed as a weight around the neck of the student publications caricatured as an innocent puppy. Although it may be your opinion, please back it up with fact. I am one of the foremost supporters (along with other Finance Committee members) of the student publications on campus as I believe they provide a great outlet for student scholarship and creativity. But, the numbers and accusations I have heard are ridiculous. Money is in short supply, as any one alive today knows that the economy is down. All budgets have suffered. I have fought my entire Westminster career for both the college and the student body. Why is Finance Committee being attacked for trying to work with ALL clubs and organizations to fund quality experiences? I know that there is major demand for the Alati as shown by their petition, but there are many events and clubs that are in highly requested. If anyone is truly concerned about funding, students should be asking more questions as to why the school wanted SGA to re-budget about $15,000 to general fund projects. Everyone, especially Finance Committee (who does not get paid), does the best they can with what they have. I do not appreciate personal attacks, not matter who they are from or who they are against. Where has respect gone at Westminster College? I thought that the principles that Westminster stood for meant more to my fellow students and colleagues than to pen childish attacks against each other. Why can we not be thankful for the wonderful professors that we are blessed with? The wonderful academic environment and debate we are capable of creating and fostering? Why can we not just be thankful for the abilities that we do have even in the hard times? Be thankful for the student publications we have, the clubs and leaders that lead even when everyone knows they are wrong, and the opportunity for an education in and out of the classroom? Why can we not be satisfied to wake up every morning with the ability to call Westminster home? I am not saying to skip the debate, but simply to raise its level. Why do we not start living up to be the change our generation proclaimed us to be? Not everything is perfect, but let us take the bad times and injuries and turn them around. Let us always find the good, and always and ever work for the betterment of Westminster College.

Sincerely,
Jordan Lawrence Pauluhn

replies:

Jordan,

First I would like to thank you for your letter. I will respond to your two concerns: the first in regards to the level of disrespect that was displayed by Patrick and Dr. John and second in regards to the political cartoon. The decision to publish Patrick’s response was not an easy one. I hope you know me well enough to know that I am not blind to disrespect or undue criticism. The manner in which this debate between Dr. John ad Patrick first arose was rooted in civility and constructive criticism. Were there some unfounded claims? I would say so. The fact that Patrick has never set foot into Dr. John’s classroom while at the same time is providing a critique of his methods lays the foundation for scrutiny. But as it became increasingly clear that neither Dr. John nor Patrick were going to “hold back” we decided that if they really wanted this to be a public discussion, we would let the students decide what was funny and what was crossing the line. Clearly, you have spoken out against Patrick’s response, among many other students. This was our intention–not to propagate hostility but to inspire reaction. Forgive us if we allow students to hold their most outlandish opinions, but that is part of the free spirit that the Alati embraces. Just as Patrick had the right to respond, you had the right to react. Now, that being said is not an excuse of the tension that students may have felt reading those two letters. But, if you know anything about Patrick and Dr. John you will see that there is no animosity between the two. Only friendly banter as they respectfully agree to disrespectfully disagree.

Now, onto your second point of unfounded claims. Well, Jordan, this claim seems to be disrespectfully unfounded itself. The Alati has not launched any such personal attack against Finance Committee. We fight for our budget and we do so peacefully. I understand that there are budget cuts everywhere on campus, but we and 400 students. Faculty and staff happen to believe that Student Publications are too important to cut. It is not fair that our campus newspaper and political magazine have been lumped with other student clubs and organizations that do not represent the entire campus, but rather only the bits and portions of student groups as it details in its mission. You cannot equate us with ECoS or Blue Blazers or Cultural Diversity. As great

as these organizations are, they only represent a handful of those students involved with them. The Alati is a forum for the entire campus! More than just students, even. We publish our magazine for the entire campus, the alumni, and the entirety of the Westminster Community. We are very different and deserve our full funding, and there has been no reason provided by SGA FC or anyone else to indicate otherwise, with the sole exception of “budget constraints.” Now, that being said we fully understand the necessity for trimming our budget. And we have done so—all of our staff took a pay cut, I have given up my pay in order to finance the fourth print issue and my staff has agreed to work on an online fifth issue without pay. But it seems this is not enough. Finance Committee wishes us to email our issues to the campus. Do you see the many problems with this (because we see about four)?

But I digress. The point is if Finance Committee will not sacrifice what is necessary to keep Student Publications alive, then we will. Now, the political cartoon that was submitted was created by a student and represented a widespread sentiment of injustice. The fact that you were emotionally provoked by it is the very reason it was printed. Political cartoons are meant to evoke emotion and reaction. Done and done. There is actually a method to our madness. I hope you understand.

—Ilia Bailey, Editor-in-Chief

Jordan,

I hope you don’t mind that I also take this opportunity to respond to your letter, as it was addressed to both Ilia and me. I am sorry that you feel that one of the core values of Westminster College has been recently lacking from the Westminster Alati. This very serious allegation that this student publication has ceased to stand for one of the four fundamental principles of the College which it represents comes as quite a shock to many of us. With regards to your complaints about Patrick Davey’s response to Dr. John Langton, I recommend that you consider the context in which the original letter came.

First of all, this was not the first letter to the editor the Alati had received regarding Mr. Davey’s sometimes incendiary articles published herein. I will direct your attention to the rather disrespectful letter we received from a computer science professor which personally insulted Mr. Davey by calling him “silly.” Secondly, consider the article Mr. Davey wrote that inspired Dr. Langton to respond. It was entitled, “What is a Conservative? Answers to All the Questions You Were too Afraid to Ask.” Why might someone be afraid to ask questions about conservatism? Perhaps because of the backlash it may incur? Finally, I must direct you to the very first page of each and every issue of the Alati, where, beneath the table of contents one can find a disclaimer: “Neither Westminster College, SGA, nor the Alati staff takes responsibility for the content of articles. They are considered on literary merit and logic, not on the views presented within them.” The purpose of the Alati is to allow people like Patrick Davey and Dr. John Langton to present their sometimes outrageous views, and to inspire discussion and debate about those views. I see this mission as the most respectful of all: to consider everyone’s opinions with equal merit and allow others the equal opportunity to respond when they do not agree. We here at the Alati take our charge very seriously. Perhaps sometimes we take ourselves too seriously. As all over-involved Westminster students can probably confirm, it is very easy to get caught up in the importance of your own organization. When the Alati staff found out that our funding was going to be cut, we were very upset, as were most other organizations who felt the pinch. We were also dissatisfied with the level of information and transparency regarding the Student Activities Budget and the amount allocated to student organizations. It is possible that some of our zealotry regarding the organization about which we are all so passionate got a little bit out of control at the first SGA meeting following the finance committee’s decision. We do not feel, however, that our political cartoon was out of line. Political cartoons are by their very nature satirical—amusing and critical, but with the intent to instruct. The lesson one should take from this jab is that the Alati is beholden to and dependent upon SGA and the Finance Committee, and so if they say we have to cut our budget, then it must be done. Again, I apologize if you found our brand of humor and bit of banter to be disrespectful. It is never our intent to libel anyone. However, if you were offended just enough to write a letter regarding your disagreement, then we are just doing our jobs. Unfounded claims aside, I would like to respectfully thank you for your letter, and I hope you will consider writing for the Alati again soon.

—Kate Black, Assistant Editor

the following letter is a reply to Billy Brownfield's article in Vol. V Issue V:

Anti-Semitism in the United States is at a dangerous level. It’s dangerous because it has blinded America’s political vision and impaired its ability to act as a just broker in the Middle East. I am of course speaking of the anti-Semitism directed against the Palestinians. Semites, linguistically speaking are those who speak one of the Semitic languages (Arabic, Hebrew etc…). The Webster dictionary defines a Semite as “a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs… a descendant of these peoples.” Therefore, unlike what is commonly believed, anti-Semitism is not exclusive to Jewish people. Being anti-Palestine is the very definition of being anti-Semite. I will take this a step further; if you do not acknowledge the Palestinian people’s right of self determination, you are as much of an anti-Semite as those who denied the Jewish people the basic indispensible rights they died for throughout their history. I was delighted to see an article in the last issue of the Alati that questioned the Palestinians’ right to establish a state. I am thankful to the author for bringing up such provocative arguments. Why should the Palestinians have a state and not the Kurds, Scottish or Irish? My response: why the Israelis and not the Palestinians? Why the British and not the Palestinians? Why the East Timorese and not the Palestinians? Are the Israelis a “nation” worthy of a state and the Palestinians are not? Answering questions with questions is never really satisfying. So here are some answers from history. That question was answered when the Zionists organized for the Jewish people in Diaspora to immigrate to Palestine while totally disregarding the Palestinians’ right to live on what the Zionists themselves acknowledged as land of Palestine. The Palestinians earned their right to govern themselves when the Zionists committed horrifying terrorist acts against the Palestinian civilians as well as British forces prior to the establishment of Israel. The question was answered when Israel forced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to leave their homes and abandon their lands and rights. It was answered again by Israel’s recent war crimes in Gaza, when Israel murdered 1200 innocent people and destroyed the entire infrastructure of Gaza. The question was answered when Israel disrespected our democracy and imposed an economic and financial blockade that has turned Gaza Strip into a concentration camp, for pure political and electoral gains. We deserve a state because we have been oppressed for too long by Israeli governments. I sincerely pity those who still argue for a one state solution. They tend to be either politically ignorant or right wing fundamentalists.

I am a Palestinian and I will not accept any sort of Israeli governance over my daily life. I refuse to be ruled by my occupiers. Just like the Americans refused British rule and resisted it, we have every right to determine who governs us and how. By the same token, I do not expect the Israelis to accept being governed by the Palestinians. Furthermore, the tension between the two ethnic groups is high enough to guarantee strife between these two groups should they live in one state. I find it rather sad, but creating one state to accommodate both Palestinians and Israelis, is more of a war proposal than a peace one. The reason I see some believers in a one state solution as right wing fundamentalists is because they imply disregard the other group’s right to be free and independent. Whether they are Palestinians or Israelis, those people are the real threat to any peace in the Middle East. Advocates of one state solution see a Jewish state and do not see a Palestinian one. Their ideas will only bring more death and devastation to both groups. [We, the Palestinians, are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights… To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among us, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Israel never had our consent to govern and never will. Israel’s governments have been too destructive of our rights and liberties, therefore it is the Right of the People of Palestine to break their ties with Israel and institute a new Government/state that is independent and sovereign from Israel on the historic land of Palestine.]

—Hasan Adwan