PSI (U)NION BROTHERS SPEAK
The Brothers of Psi Upsilon Fraternity
Issue date: 10/29/09 Section: Opinions
This letter comes in response to the article "SUSPENDED" that was published in the October 8 version of the Concordiensis. Now that the appeal has been decided and the newspaper has chosen not to rescind its remarks despite our request, the brothers of the Psi Upsilon Fraternity would like to respond.
In the article, our fraternity was described as having "acquired a seedy reputation". For anyone who is unfamiliar with the term "seedy", here is a definition:
"Shabby, dirty-looking and often disreputable; sleazy, slimy, untrustworthy, indecent".
This is the label we were branded with when the Concordiensis staff decided to publish this article. We would like to note, however, that it was not the author of the article who inserted this insult - we in no way blame her - but actually a section editor who not only condoned such yellow journalism, but actively practiced it. To this individual or group of individuals involved, we are appalled and offended by your personal attack. When you target a group in this way, you are actually attacking the dignity and questioning the character of each individual who is a member of that group. By inserting this remark, you demonstrated an incredible lack of consideration for the psychological and personal well-being of the individuals of this fraternity. In addition, you illustrated your shocking notion (especially given your leadership position) that a theoretically objective section of the school newspaper is an appropriate arena to express your personal dislike for a specific group of students. Sadly, that no rescission was published demonstrates that such behavior is at best considered worthy of a slap on the wrist, and at worst deemed acceptable by the Concordiensis staff.
In addition to this galling comment, we take issue with the Dean of Students' use of the school newspaper as an arena to voice his opinion about our appeal before it had been decided, while making gross generalizations about individuals whom he does not know and whose best interest he is employed to represent. It is hard to believe, for example, that a member of the Appeals Board would not be affected - whether consciously or subconsciously - by the Dean of Students' dismissive and abrasive characterization of the members of the fraternity in question as individuals who "put people's lives at risk." Such students one would want to eradicate from Union to the extent possible as they sound threatening, dangerous, and disruptive to the community.
In the article, our fraternity was described as having "acquired a seedy reputation". For anyone who is unfamiliar with the term "seedy", here is a definition:
"Shabby, dirty-looking and often disreputable; sleazy, slimy, untrustworthy, indecent".
This is the label we were branded with when the Concordiensis staff decided to publish this article. We would like to note, however, that it was not the author of the article who inserted this insult - we in no way blame her - but actually a section editor who not only condoned such yellow journalism, but actively practiced it. To this individual or group of individuals involved, we are appalled and offended by your personal attack. When you target a group in this way, you are actually attacking the dignity and questioning the character of each individual who is a member of that group. By inserting this remark, you demonstrated an incredible lack of consideration for the psychological and personal well-being of the individuals of this fraternity. In addition, you illustrated your shocking notion (especially given your leadership position) that a theoretically objective section of the school newspaper is an appropriate arena to express your personal dislike for a specific group of students. Sadly, that no rescission was published demonstrates that such behavior is at best considered worthy of a slap on the wrist, and at worst deemed acceptable by the Concordiensis staff.
In addition to this galling comment, we take issue with the Dean of Students' use of the school newspaper as an arena to voice his opinion about our appeal before it had been decided, while making gross generalizations about individuals whom he does not know and whose best interest he is employed to represent. It is hard to believe, for example, that a member of the Appeals Board would not be affected - whether consciously or subconsciously - by the Dean of Students' dismissive and abrasive characterization of the members of the fraternity in question as individuals who "put people's lives at risk." Such students one would want to eradicate from Union to the extent possible as they sound threatening, dangerous, and disruptive to the community.
Be the first to comment on this story