You may be aware of recent emails from certain governing bodies that have caused distress to anybody who cares for clarity, or good writing, or an administration that is not afraid to take a stance.
In an effort to remain as unbiased and inoffensive as possible, SA and University administrators sent out an embarrassingly vague email.
SA shouldn’t waste their time wasting our time with emails that don’t say anything. Nor should they be using emails to plug events in response to incidents that aren’t even named in those very emails.
We might expect such pandering from administration, but from our fellow students?
“This set of events provides us with an opportunity to practice our core values,” the email says.
What set of events? This could have been about anything. Nowhere in the email do the words “Tibet,” “China,” “College Republicans,” “CSA,” or “Starbucks” appear.
And why tell us about “meaningful dialogues” between groups involved without actually telling us anything specific about them?
One of the only direct statements in the email — the title — is wrong. This email was not published with the consent of all of SA, although all of SA’s names are included in the email title. Instead, a select few members of SA leadership took it upon themselves to speak for the entire student government. It’s neither right nor fair to drag all of Senate through the mud over an email only three SA members wrote.
In the future, our representatives should be involved in an email to the whole student body that lumps the entire organization together.
It’s not feasible to expect every single senator to have a hand in writing the email. But it’s reasonable to expect senators to get a heads up, and be able to approve or deny the email.
One wonders how the email might have been different if all our elected representatives had had a say over its content.
Why claim an email represents the entire government if it doesn’t?
Meliora,
Editorial Board
Editor’s Note (10/30/19): The original headline of this piece, “Joint statement from management and one editor,” was changed to clarify the topic of the piece.
