Even before the printing of last week’s issue of The Student Life, the question of an article that was going to be printed arose on campus, and began to cause a somewhat mild uproar. A writer–and though a seemingly unimportant distinction, a freshman–had chosen to write an article on on-campus self-segregation as he saw it, particularly focusing on Pomona’s Asian American Mentor Program (AAMP). The article was written, and then rewritten, revised by his editors and the editing staff, and because it was deemed both printable and pertinent, printed in the Opinions section for perusal by the greater Pomona community. Responses to this article were both anticipated and welcomed, for the topic, and other such topics, have often lent themselves to controversy. I was not fully prepared for what I was to hear on campus.

Students on this campus expressed great "disappointment" with both the writer and the newspaper; the former for having and presenting the views as he did, and the latter for allowing, of all students, a freshman, to write such a controversial piece. The newspaper welcomes and accepts contending viewpoints, but the ramifications of a belief that only certain people should have and be allowed to share certain perspectives reach far beyond this college and this publication.

Journalists–Opinions writers in particular–have a certain obligation to fulfill. They are to represent a viewpoint that they hopefully hold with some passion or enthusiasm, keeping a couple things in mind. To fulfill their proper function, pieces should not solely be written to offend readers or solicit responses, but also to present a novel or interesting outlook on a particular topic. When behaving correctly, these writers and their articles should support themselves solidly from two points, the perspective and journalistic integrity of the author. To write anything under false pretense or personal situation breaks those doctrines, and writers who put forth such pieces should be questioned critically.

Yet when this piece was presented on campus last week, it was questioned in an altogether different light. Students questioned the newspaper and the writer for a first-year student’s article written about a first-year’s perspective of racial self-segregation. It was as if recently arriving at this school made the student’s ideas invalid, due to what was called a ‘lack of perspective.’ And yet, on a topic encountering such controversy in the past, very few students took one of two very appropriate courses of action. One, this would have ideally been a time to contemplate why many freshmen (as well as sophomores, juniors, and seniors) feel the very same way about the issue, and to consider ways to combat this viewpoint. Or two, to respond verbally, or more importantly, in writing, to the topic of disagreement, as opposed to the writer and his demographic situation. Students on this campus actually got riled up about an issue and made promises of well thought-out and comprehensive replies, yet, as can be seen, all but one lost their impassioned motivation.

This is a time to analyze issues given the contexts and situations of their bearers. If students in this college and people in this nation make statements, only to be criticized on, not content, but their right to speak their mind from where they stand, then when tribulations arrive here again, as they have so recently, we will not have grown in our collective experiences or understanding at all.

Sincerely,

Amit Thakkar

Editor-in-Chief