Dear Anonymous Writer,
Having read your letter to the Editor, we were a bit bemused at your choice to remain anonymous. After all, the editor places her name alongside her opinions and if you care and believe strongly enough in your opinion then why do you feel the need to hide away? But, then again, after reading and analyzing your rancid tirade we think its probably for the best you remain anonymous, to avoid further embarrassment for yourself.
The foremost point of the editor’s article, which you seem to have missed, is she (the editor) was not berating the rules, she was voicing concerns of the way in which they were being enforced. She stated she has read the rules and understands them—you seem to have totally missed this.
We put it to you, Mr/Mrs Anonymous, that your response was nothing short of an aggressive and insulting barrage of unnecessary and hurtful taunts which you should be ashamed of. Personally, we have great relationships with some RAs here on campus, but think we can all agree that there are a certain few who are on major power trips and abuse their position of dominion over fellow peers.
You self-confess to having “no right to judge” the heart of the editor. We strongly suggest you take a long, hard look at the response you constructed, paying particular attention to your word choices and tell us if you still feel that you did not judge the heart and the character of the editor whilst writing a response to a piece of work created and intended for the very purpose that you have abided by in producing a response.
Whilst the editor’s opinion was objectively dealing with an issue that is proven time and time over, with multiple perpetrators, your response was wholly idiosyncratic to call out the stance of the editor and the editor alone. Not once did you show mutual understanding to the situation, illustrating to anyone reading your response that you most probably are not in a position to offer a well-rounded estimation on the interactions between RAs and rule-breaking students at Bryan College.
Now we are totally aware of the strong-natured response we are presenting here, but we would never make it personal. You have the right, just like each of us, to your own opinion. But with this right comes a responsibility to respect the opinion of another, and we believe you have completely undermined this responsibility. By all means, write a response challenging the main points of the article, but do not communicate this in such a way that presents your opinion as utterly righteous.
You said to the Editor:
“You could have addressed an issue here, instead you came across as so hateful and immature you hindered your case rather than helping it.”
You also said she should not use personal bias in her writings. We believe this statement to be wildly judgmental. By mentioning that the editor has a bias (which we already know due to her editorial being an opinion piece) you have not only highlighted the fact that you are in complete juxtaposition to her view, but you communicate that because of this, her opinion is unworthy of public broadcast.
You need look no further than the great amount of debate her article has provoked, clearly depicting it to be a very successful one. The editor has sparked a great amount of interest, and clearly many within the Bryan community are now talking about this issue. This is exactly what great journalism is about.
You call the editor an “over protective mother.” Spot on, well done to you. We will overlook the attempted derogatory statement you constructed and agree with you that by definition an editorial is an article that gives an opinion on a topical issue. If an editor was to keep her business to herself and not immerse herself into the lives of the students for which she writes the school newspaper, then we would have no news stories reported, no sentiments to be shared and no platforms for cowardly anons like you to express their opinion.
You say to the Editor:
“Your editorial was way out of line, and came across not as a person who is not trying to address an issue, but a person who has unresolved issues having a catty angry gossip session with a friend.”
We would suggest that after reading your brashly ludicrous statement, that this is a slight case of one throwing a rock when residing in a glass house?
You pitch Galatians 3:26 at Catherine: we all deserve respect. Again you show yourself to be a hypocrite due to the lack of respect you have shown in your very own response.
Again, we would like to mention that we have great relationships with some RAs here on campus. We do not categorize them together as a collective group that we are prejudiced against, but we think many can agree that there are a certain few who are on self-aggrandizing quests for ever-increasing control over others and abuse their position.
Understand that the entire point of the original article was not stressing the trepidations that actions have reactions, and rules and laws being broken have resulting consequences. More, it is the manner in which the punishments for slipping up are enforced that is causing the heated debate here.
For example, to use your own reference, it is not the speeding ticket as a direct result of speeding that is the problem, but it is the way the speeding ticket is being delivered to your hand. The RAs enforcing rules would be like handing you a speeding ticket with a personal sting in the tail. No one likes it, and it is a bitter pill to swallow when the day comes that it happens to be you on the receiving end. We’re glad you “have never had a problem with the RAs,” but know, this places you completely unworthy of a valid opinion in response to the subject matter.
More than once you agreed to the sole point of the original article by saying that perhaps the incident should have been dealt with in a different manner. You could have saved yourself time and effort, and not wasted that of ours or others who read your article, by ending your response there. But then again you did “ponder for days as to whether or not you should respond” to the original article so perhaps both time and priorities are not of any value to you these days.
You say, “Where is the love?” Where is your love? Christianity is not something to be earned by following rules. You are not a better person for following more “rules” than someone who claims to be a Christian. For you to hold to this opinion demonstrates poor discipleship in your life, something no one would wish upon anyone. None of us are perfect, we never will be. To be humble in our approach to daily life and encounter others as we would wish to be treated is all that we can ask of one another.
Understand that we are unaware of your personal identity; our response is merely a challenge to the words you have written, not to whom you are and what you stand for. You constantly refer to yourself as a mature “adult,” so we are confident you will be able to digest what we have written.
– Junior Jordan Devlin, senior Harry Sherwood and junior Richard Kirk.
Loading ...
