2008 Woodie Awards
Student speaks out against Browning's article on SGA
Terrance Avery
Issue date: 3/30/07 Section: Letters to the editor
- Page 1 of 1
Dear Editor,
It's an oddity in the world of newspaper editorials that a letter to the editor is in fact, addressed directly to the editor. Editor in Chief Alyson Browning's article comparing SGA to Welcome Week Steering Committee / Omnibus staff is, at worst, very offensive and, at best, irrelevant. The entire basis of her "comparison" is a stretch. Her blatant disregard for student opinion and her personal attacks on those in leadership positions of SGA are offensive to me and others.
First, I think it's important to point out, as Browning did, that leadership positions (president, vice president, representatives, etc.) are student elected. This fact alone makes Browning's comparisons irrelevant. A panel of five students cannot choose who governs an entire student body.
Students have a voice. If only 500 students choose to have their voice heard, then those are the ones that have the power. The problem isn't the selection process. The problem isn't lack of leadership and skill by members of SGA. The problem is that only a small part of the student body takes part in the election process. Debates and "get to know your candidates" type of discussions are held. If students choose not to partake in these efforts, the blame does not rest on the shoulders of SGA. Besides, all committee chairs are interviewed by former cabinet members and elected officials who are given power by the students.
As far as popularity goes, being popular does not make you a bad leader or mean that you have no skills as a leader. As adults, we have the ability to choose who and who not to find "popular." This isn't high school anymore, and the person who had the cool backpack in 2nd grade doesn't really hold much clout in college. Maturity is a great thing. It allows us to choose those who lead and have skills to be the popular ones.
We can demand better leadership all we want. The bottom line is, if we don't have the interest from the student body to more actively participate in the election process, we have no choice but to accept the leadership in place. I personally think the SGA does a good job overall. Sure, there are some things that could be improved, but again, without student participation, an organization to serve the students cannot adequately do so.
So for you, Ms. Browning, I have two challenges:
Challenge #1: Step down off that high horse before you fall off and hurt yourself. In case you haven't noticed, the Omnibus isn't perfect either. Overall, I think it's a good publication, but it does have its flaws. There are numerous students who complain about typos, bad articles, and yes, even bad editors.
Challenge #2: Publish my letter. A real test for a leader is the ability to take criticism. Let it be known that the "exceptional amount of vision and skill" that you so eloquently bestow upon yourself means nothing without at least a little bit of knowledge and tact.
Terrance Avery
Junior
It's an oddity in the world of newspaper editorials that a letter to the editor is in fact, addressed directly to the editor. Editor in Chief Alyson Browning's article comparing SGA to Welcome Week Steering Committee / Omnibus staff is, at worst, very offensive and, at best, irrelevant. The entire basis of her "comparison" is a stretch. Her blatant disregard for student opinion and her personal attacks on those in leadership positions of SGA are offensive to me and others.
First, I think it's important to point out, as Browning did, that leadership positions (president, vice president, representatives, etc.) are student elected. This fact alone makes Browning's comparisons irrelevant. A panel of five students cannot choose who governs an entire student body.
Students have a voice. If only 500 students choose to have their voice heard, then those are the ones that have the power. The problem isn't the selection process. The problem isn't lack of leadership and skill by members of SGA. The problem is that only a small part of the student body takes part in the election process. Debates and "get to know your candidates" type of discussions are held. If students choose not to partake in these efforts, the blame does not rest on the shoulders of SGA. Besides, all committee chairs are interviewed by former cabinet members and elected officials who are given power by the students.
As far as popularity goes, being popular does not make you a bad leader or mean that you have no skills as a leader. As adults, we have the ability to choose who and who not to find "popular." This isn't high school anymore, and the person who had the cool backpack in 2nd grade doesn't really hold much clout in college. Maturity is a great thing. It allows us to choose those who lead and have skills to be the popular ones.
We can demand better leadership all we want. The bottom line is, if we don't have the interest from the student body to more actively participate in the election process, we have no choice but to accept the leadership in place. I personally think the SGA does a good job overall. Sure, there are some things that could be improved, but again, without student participation, an organization to serve the students cannot adequately do so.
So for you, Ms. Browning, I have two challenges:
Challenge #1: Step down off that high horse before you fall off and hurt yourself. In case you haven't noticed, the Omnibus isn't perfect either. Overall, I think it's a good publication, but it does have its flaws. There are numerous students who complain about typos, bad articles, and yes, even bad editors.
Challenge #2: Publish my letter. A real test for a leader is the ability to take criticism. Let it be known that the "exceptional amount of vision and skill" that you so eloquently bestow upon yourself means nothing without at least a little bit of knowledge and tact.
Terrance Avery
Junior
Be the first to comment on this story