Image from exponto.spavia.com

Land ahoy! Editors at the Sun are on the banks of reason.

After over a month of silence on the matter, the Daily Stun‘s staff has finally come around, stating in an editorial that Ken Glover & Co.’s accusation of administrative racism against the Africana center was “‘harsh… and revolutionary dialogue… that creates a misleading atmosphere.” In a very atypical fashion, the Sun admonishes the Africana leaders’ use of “racially-charged rhetoric” and encourages the group to look positively at the Center’s future instead of continuing to fight the University’s move to bring it under Arts & Sciences.

Of course, this was all said a long, long time ago in a blog not very far away.

While the editors throw the proverbial bone to the Africana protestors, saying the “outrage stems from legitimate complaints of unilateral decision making,” they nonetheless take a firm and impressive stance against the absurd language used at December’s rally. Thinking progressively, the editors also call upon Provost Fuchs to provide the utmost support for and recognition of the importance of Africana studies in the Arts & Sciences program. They’re absolutely right. Unfortunately, for the University to finally quash the ridiculous accusations by the most radical Africana supporters, they need to prove the claims they made of increased funding and a PhD program were not feigned.

It appears Judah Bellin’s sophisticated article yesterday and Steven Zhang’s piece today may have swayed the folks over at the Sun. While Bellin’s article examined Africana’s competing philosophies as the root of the problem, Zhang reiterated the ridiculousness of its actions today. Zhang hints that K.G. & CO’s protests have diluted the danger of real racism and that their complaints would have been warranted only if the change had never been made.

We’re glad to have you on board, Daily Sun. It took awhile,but it’s always difficult to get the whole package at once.

A collection of disorganized points and unsubstantiated insults, the article has little factual basis and relies on name-calling to drive the author’s angry and offensive ranting.  On multiple occasions, these rants directly malign all those who associate with the Republican Party or the Tea Party Movement as idiots.

Well apparently someone missed the memo: I am not an “idiot.” I’m neither a “crazy” nor am I a “racist” and I certainly don’t appreciate having my political views being called an “inherently classist and racist political philosophy.”

Who’s the real bigot here?

Allow me to fill you in on what it really means to be a Republican or to support the Tea Party Movement.  It doesn’t mean blindly following the most outspoken members of our parties that appear on Fox News.  It means standing up against a majority that suppresses logic with mud slinging and passes legislation that opposes the will of the country, due in large part to a grandiose sense of superiority.  The word that most accurately characterizes the ideals and moral foundation of the Republican Party…is ‘Optimism.’

This type of optimism isn’t that type of blissful ignorance traditionally associated with ‘blind optimism,’ but, rather, is a philosophy characterized by the belief that people don’t need to be mandated by the government to lend one another a helping hand and that they don’t need some self-entitled bureaucrat to force “the right thing to do” down their throats.  It is an optimism which I only found because of a number of conversations with a colleague of mine, who, through reasoned and rational debate, opened my eyes to the mistakes of the Democratic Party: mistakes that have been made underneath the misguided heading “the sacrifices that you are making now are in your best interests.”  Never once was a point made by referring to those in power as idiots.  The points instead appealed to reason without the use of racist remarks, scripture or yelling.

As an editorial writer, you aren’t going to win anyone over by throwing around loaded terms and being blatantly intolerant of those who don’t agree with you.  Winning over the minds of those who don’t share your political philosophy requires the same type of substantiated argumentation that my colleague presented to me.  By the time I had really put my unsupported Democratic ideals to the test, I realized that I needed to reinvent my political philosophy.  I write for The Review with the hope that I can make someone else really think about his or her political beliefs and reach conclusions similar to mine.  I will never resort to bigotry, especially at the repugnant levels that are reached in The Sun article.

There are crazies within every political movement, yet it is my goal to point out that the Tea Party and the Republican Party are not characterized by the opinions of the ones who get the most media attention.  The negative stereotype presented in the article is far removed from reality.  I am a Republican because of my intelligence, not in spite of it, and I have never been more proud to say so.

It’s tough out there for a journalist!  Or at least the Daily Stun wants it to be.  Because when it comes to breaking stories, The Stun is quite the scoop-Nazi.

In a rather strange exhibition of puerility, Cornell’s trusted news source refused to provide a Review writer with notes from an interview after she had agreed to share audio recording with another journalist from the Stun.  While it is not The Review‘s MO to take jabs at competing papers, its mission is to illuminate hostility towards conservatives on campus, and expose those institutions which aim to silence the minority voice.  In this aspect, The Stun is a front-runner.

When Review writer Kathleen McCaffrey’s recorder didn’t work before an interview last week with Czech president Václav Klaus, a Sun reporter kindly agreed to send her the audio from his own device after the interview.  Surprised by such professionalism shown between the two, an administrator overseeing the event said, “wow, how nice of you two to work together.”

But the professionalism was short-lived, as the Stun’s managing editor instructed his reporter to withhold the information.  He even refused to provide President Klaus’s quotes that were in response to McCaffrey’s direct questions, citing a long-term policy that doesn’t allow sharing of unpublished information.

“I’ve never heard of any such rule,” one long-time Stun staff member told The Review – perhaps he insisted anonymity for fear of receiving a ‘time-out.’

In typical fashion, The Stun, shielded under the guise of self-proclaimed neutrality, was in fact operating under a strict policy of discrimination.  While the paper offered to assess the correctness of quotes if McCaffrey tried guessing what was said, it insisted upon standing by the eternal policy of withholding information.  When asked to recall a recent implementation of this rule, however, the editor stumbled, only able to recount a time where information was indeed passed on upon request.  Nevertheless, the Review‘s request for help from another professional was denied.

“From how The Review writes about us, I don’t think we have that professional relationship.  I mean come on, you call us The Daily Stun,” the managing editor said to The Review over the phone.  “Frankly, a lot of people on our staff don’t like the way we’re treated in your newspaper [and online],” he continued, affirming suspicions that the request for information was denied for personal reasons.  “It’s like, why would you give your notes to the kid in class that’s a bully?”

Well it’s always good to know we’re reaching our audience.  Thankfully, the article on President Klaus will be published in full this coming Wednesday, despite The Stun’s efforts.  As it turns out, the President’s aid willingly handed over the audio from the meeting over a week later.  Congratulations to Cornell’s flagship daily paper for having a more iron-clad privacy policy than the Czech Republic.  Stunning?