McDonough editorial unfounded

If Robbie McDonough is a symbol of everything that is wrong with Senate, then your vitriolic attack upon his performance and character is a symbol of everything that is wrong with your publication. After reading McDonough’s speech and your editorial, I am left with a burning question: where is this lack of professionalism with which you are so concerned?

In a condescending sentence that smacks of less professionalism than the entire content of McDonough’s resignation, you write of “His diatribe, which paints a picture of shattered personal dreams and untrustworthy Senate leadership …” Diatribe? Did a member of the Ed Board just pull out the dictionary, pick a “big word,” and fail to read the definition in a desperate attempt to give your rant a sense of legitimacy? The presenter of the diatribe is The Daily Campus, not the former chief of staff.

You accuse McDonough of an attack when he gives nothing of the sort. While McDonough explains that he has issues with the Senate leadership, he also demonstrates respect for former President Jodi Warmbrod, thanks his Senate chairs, shows his appreciation to Senate Adviser Arlene Manthey, and expresses his gratitude toward Student Body Vice President Britt Moen. If this is your idea of an attack, then perhaps you should re-examine the dictionary from which you pulled “diatribe” and look up the definition.

In yet another comment that refuses to use the lens of criticism introspectively, you state: “Change comes from level heads and calm words, not passionate manifestos that sacrifice persuasiveness for visceral impact.” A true statement, indeed; however, the comment applies far more to the Ed Board. McDonough’s resignation was not a “passionate manifesto;” instead it was an emotional goodbye. Not only do you put words in McDonough’s mouth; you have the audacity to criticize him for things he did not say.

Your fantastical criticism does not end there; from where did you get the idea that McDonough plans to run in the upcoming Senate elections? McDonough’s intentions to participate in the elections are as imagined as the moral subjectivism of which the Ed Board appears to be so proud. Are you so thirsty for blood that you must fabricate a completely hypothetical, ludicrous situation in order to have something about which to write?

In conclusion, you reference a column in which McDonough defended Senate’s actions to protect its candidates’ privacy. McDonough’s “Little Sammy” article both challenged and humiliated the Ed Board. Well, it looks like you finally got your chance to humiliate him in return. While you took the chance and made both false and outrageous attacks in the process, the end result is not the embarrassment of McDonough; instead, the attempted disgrace remains in your pages as a reflection of the Ed Board’s blatant lack of professionalism and journalistic integrity. Perhaps you should keep that in mind before further infecting SMU with your cruel, hurtful invective.

(And by the way, I double-checked my dictionary on that last word; believe me, the term is more than applicable).