Bryan College Triangle

Nathan Janeway
Guest Commentator

Over the past few weeks the sexual allegations made against Herman Cain have literally exploded.

Allegations of an obscene and grotesque nature have surfaced about the African American founder of Godfather’s Pizza so much so that it seems as if there is a new woman every week coming out of the proverbial closet to publicize what the only non-politician in the group has allegedly done. With women like Sharon Bialek coming out and graphically describing the events that have supposedly transpired, it has cast a dark shadow over a man who we all saw as the guy that was too evangelical to win the ticket.

Blame has been cast back and fourth like a ping pong ball from other candidates to the media. Rick Perry was immaturely blamed for the incident at the start, I believe, from a poor reaction in blame shifting from the weak Cain campaign administration. Blame was then passed from the Perry campaign to the source of the original article, politico.

The fact remains, someone leaked the information and pumped this up to be either A.) a distraction or B.) a sucker punch to the unstable and weak Cain campaign. With the Perry campaign quickly acquitted, that leaves the Romney campaign (who was falling in Cains inflated shadow), or a liberal organization who did not want a well to do conservative black man messing things up so to speak.

Obviously, if the allegations are true, we don’t want a man like that running the country, especially running on the conservative evangelical base that he likes to court. If they aren’t true, it still hurts him I think.

His reactions and his campaign’s reaction to this fiasco have been disappointing and somewhat scary. He failed to confront the issue at first, and when his campaign finally did, they acted out of fear and ignorance! His campaign reacted by jumping on a “completely innocent” campaign without facts or hard evidence. It showed immaturity and lack of digression.

As a stretching right leaning libertarian conservative, I want nothing more than to elect a candidate who will uphold the constitution, stop spending, break the status quo, stop spending and regulation, and ultimately defeat President Obama in the next election. But, what I don’t want is someone just as inexperienced, idealistic, and naive as we already have. Cain presents a down to earth, normal American candidate; one who understands and sympathizes with the common man. These are appealing qualities, but experience is a crucial quality that must be taken into consideration.

Remember, the race is not over yet. These candidates still have much more to bring to the table. I encourage you not to make a decision until you ultimately have to. Study all the candidates. Study their record, and see if it matches their rhetoric. Find the one that most closely aligns with you and get out and vote!

Erika Simpson
Senior Editor

As an editor on the Triangle staff, I am typically privy to most articles before they go to print. This, however, was not the case with either the “Friday night circus” article or the editorial in response to it. My first knowledge of the debate that was sparked by these articles came through Facebook. It literally congested my news feed—negative and positive comments alike.

I overheard many students discussing these articles for weeks afterwards and read the letters to the editor that were emailed to Triangle. The one that was published in the last print issue of the Triangle, “Clowns on a Mission,” caught my attention in particular because it accused the Triangle of printing false information and information from students involved that did not know they were being interviewed.

I checked with Andrew Wilber who interviewed them and saw some of the texts between himself and those he interviewed. Wilber told those he spoke to that he was a reporter for the Triangle and asked to record their conversations—they agreed. Others had no comment, but confirmed that they were present for the incident discussed in the article.

The writer of “Clowns on a Mission” stated that we are a Christian college and we should uplift people. True, but that is not the primary purpose of a newspaper. Newspapers began with the intention of holding the government accountable to the people. The purpose of a free press is to relate information that is in the public interest. Our newspaper holds the college accountable—including students.

Triangle does not print gossip—stories with unverifiable information (which would be the case if we did not mention the names of those involved in our articles). Triangle prints relevant information. Would you not want to know about crazies on campus with clown masks that may flash you on your evening walk?

Now for the matter of Shane Vicry’s editorial: His piece may have come off harsh to some, but it may help you understand his writing style if you know him. True, he doesn’t mind offending people, but he is also a sarcastic person. Anyone who has had one conversation with him would understand that his article was meant to make a point while being entertaining. His purpose was not to tarnish the reputation of those involved.

“Friday Night Circus” and Shane’s editorial also irked some students completely unrelated to the articles. Triangle received complaints that accused us of publishing incorrect information and scolded us for mentioning students that refused to comment on the situation. Journalists do not need an individual’s permission to use his name in a story, but a good journalist would confirm with everyone involved—which Andrew did. If an individual refuses to make a comment for the journalist who is writing the story, then the journalist cannot be held responsible for that individual’s perspective not being printed in the story. It’s like complaining about the president after refusing to vote.

Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion about the “Friday Night Circus” incident and the corresponding editorial—that includes the Triangle staff. When an editorial is printed, it is that editor’s opinion. Sometimes the purpose is to entertain and sometimes it is to encourage people to think a little more. It is my opinion that these two articles did both of those things.

Even though both of these stories angered some within the Bryan community, I believe that they served a greater good. They forced people to share their opinions and voice their concerns. Our forefathers fought hard for our freedom of speech. Let’s not waste it.

Shane Vicry
Triangle Reporter

Editors note: This is an opinion article written as a side story to “Men’s golf team poised to shine at start of season.”

There is much reason for optimism for the upcoming Bryan golf season, but along with eligibility problems, the team will also face one other significant obstacle of note. Because of the school’s long standing policy of not competing in athletic events on Sundays, the team will have to work from behind the eight-ball in their quest for a title. Read full story »

Jesse Murray
Senior Reporter

What is a rebel? See, I’ll be honest with you; there’s only one James Dean and he died in 1955. Don’t get me wrong – there are times when breaking the given rule is necessary. (Example: Martin Luther struggling with a faith so seemingly vague and out of reach, and yet, finding the gall to undermine the institutional church in hopes of making such a statement as to bring the “lied to” to Christ… but I digress. That’s another story.)

But what is a rebel without a cause? Take it from someone who has a side of him who enjoys chaos in that late 60s/early 70s way. And take it from someone who had broken almost every rule at Bryan just for the sake of breaking them; but you see, that is just the problem – things tend so much toward chaos in the first place, a good shove from an upstart makes no sense.

Read full story »

Dear Editor,

I don’t usually have a strong public voice about much of anything these days, even less so about Bryan College policies. I’m no journalist, I’m no politics major, I’m just a busy little musical theatre major with more scripts in my hands than time, but your last editorial has forced me into a very distinct public opinion and I thought I’d share it. Let me first say, however, that though I admit I am very frustrated about your previous editorial, I apologize in advance if I seem hateful or spiteful. I don’t mean to be. Read full story »