Editor,

In the recent "Sex Spotlight" issue of The Student Life (Congratulations, the condom picture on the cover made both Beavis AND Butthead laugh.) we found our publication, Claremont Independent (CI), under attack in Patrick Chesney’s article "CI Article Meets With Skepticism at Pomona."

To begin with, the title of Mr. Chesney’s article is of poor journalistic form since it misleads the reader. Instead of a look at how the Pomona community reacted to a certain article of the CI, one finds a single student’s tirade full of ironies and unsupported generalizations.

Mr. Chesney states that his "resentment for the Claremont Independent, the Five Colleges’ conservative publication, stems from [his] desire for unbiased reporting." This comment is laughable for two reasons: 1.) The Student Life (TSL) is known for its liberal biases and focus, and 2.) CI is an openly conservative publication. While we try to be fair in our investigative reporting, we make no pretense to hide our biases as other news sources often do.

Later, Mr. Chesney comically calls us "reactionary" and suggests that our paper would be better dubbed the "Claremont Kneejerk." This comment is especially ironic because Mr. Chesney’s article is nothing more than a kneejerk reaction to an article in our paper. Journalism should be proactive by finding stories (or at least conducting thorough reviews of other publications), not reactive by simply covering individual stories from other publications. We understand this idea and strive for proactive journalism, covering stories that few others cover, and Pomona College would be better served if TSL followed our lead. The article concerning queer studies was not a kneejerk reaction. Unlike Mr. Chesney’s article, there was no particular event that sparked our author [Mike Hubbard]’s article. Mr. Hubbard’s piece is simply an opinion that he has wanted to write for some time.

The ironies continue in Mr. Chesney’s article when he states that the arguments within the CI are "overshadowed by unsupported assumptions and a lack of support for their conclusions." This assertion is ironic because Mr. Chesney backs up his statement by attacking only a single story from the CI. Perhaps "support for [your] conclusions" means something different at Pomona, but at CMC we are generally required to produce more than one piece of evidence to back up our statements. If you are going to have the questionable taste to publish an article criticizing a singular article in our publication, the least you could do is restrict the criticism to that article, rather than making "unsupported assumptions" about the rest of the CI.

More idiocy follows when Mr. Chesney takes a statement from our article out of context. Mr. Hubbard concluded that we do not need queer studies programs at the Claremont Colleges. From this conclusion, Mr. Chesney incorrectly extrapolates: "Apparently, unlike many conservatives out there, CI does not allow for any area of study that falls outside of the realm of upholding their beliefs." This statement is completely unwarranted, unsubstantiated, and just plain silly. If Mr. Hubbard had proposed a "Conservative Studies" requirement, then perhaps Mr. Chesney’s attack would be justified. As it is, though, it detracts from the overall quality of your publication to print such bunkum.

The thoughts expressed in Mr. Chesney’s piece would have been most properly expressed in a letter to the editor of the CI rather than in a full-length opinion in your paper.

Sincerely,

Jason Lippenberger, CMC ‘04

Apollo Morgan, CMC ‘04