Independent Editor Instructs Ed Board on "Reason"

Dear Editors,

Your last editorial was amazing. I use that word in the same sense I use it to describe traffic in Greater Los Angeles. Both traffic and your editorials are senseless and wholly inexplicable, but after a while, I cease complaining and recognize that I am witnessing something extraordinary: Things this baffling do not often come around.

It is for this reason that I hesitate to offer you constructive criticism. But since you have made it obvious that if I (or someone currently not on your editorial board) does not offer such advice, the loud sucking sound caused by your editorials’ black hole-like effect on reason will only get louder, I feel compelled to offer a few pointers.

First, an editorial has a purpose. Do you want to propose a solution, advance an interesting line of thought, bring attention to a matter that has gone unnoticed? There are many possible takes that can pass as an editorial. Aimless preachiness is not one of them. For example, pointing out why a particular Pomona policy is bad would be a good editorial. Expounding the idea that the entire nation was “cynical” in this year’s elections, and that you, the venerable TSL editorial board know a better way, though, is a bad editorial.

Second, an editorial completely explains a position. You want the reader to follow your reasoning from the start of the piece to its end. If “A” and “B” and “C,” then “D.” That is an example of a line of reasoning. Your editorials, though, feature such throw-away lines as, “When explained to the American people in terms that respect them as free-thinking individuals, the Republican agenda is notably unpopular,” and “. . . the most cynically conservative supermajority since the Gilded Age with no intention of adhering to the old liberal values of that particular preamble now controls three branches of the federal government.” Such statements require some type of support, but you provide none. The lines of “reasoning” in your editorials read more like a bowl of Alphabet Soup than a well-formed syllogism.

Third, a good editorial does not completely ignore the existence of arguments to the contrary. Your editorials, though, seem to be the result of groupthink from people who are torn still over the Nader/Gore question, oblivious to the fact that no one else cares. There are enough wacky liberals at these Colleges to assure that you are neither the first nor the most eloquent to expound the ideals you present. Therefore, perhaps you could do something useful and show how your opinions stack up against those of people who disagree (i.e. most people not at Pomona). This would have the added benefit of forcing you to support your statements with something we rational people call “evidence.” I hope this word is not as new to you as your writing makes it seem.

I must admit, though, I would have mixed feelings about TSL providing improved editorials. Much like a lack of traffic, it seems like a good thing, but if it continually happens, it would feel as though something were wrong. Without enigmatic, undecipherable editorials, TSL might become as indistinctive as the 10 without its trademark congestion.

Your faithful reader,

C. Apollo Morgan CMC ’04