A campus-wide call to arms

The opinions expressed in last year’s commentaries werediametrically opposed to the views of a significant majority of SMUstudents.

Readers of The Daily Campus received a daily dose of vitriolaimed at values lauded by the typical Mustang.

The commentary page was transformed into a breeding pool ofdiscontent and narcissism.

Commentaries and editorials, the permanent record of studentopinion, predominantly failed to express students’opinions.

Diatribes commonly focused on the stereotypes of greek members,super-opulent students, and “gas-guzzling” SUV-drivers.Stereotyping cheapens analysis by exaggerating weaknesses andignoring positive qualities. Writers enjoyed taking cheap shots ata fictitious sorority girl who meanders Northpark Mall instead ofstudying.

While these authors were typing their commentaries, hundreds ofgreek members were volunteering at the highest ranks of studentorganizations and working tirelessly on homecoming and philanthropyprojects.

This misrepresentation was most pronounced in the critique ofelected officials, and the issue raises an even greater concern.The Bush administration was called a group of “radicalnationalists” who “intend to dominate the world”in a commentary on May 2, yet SMU students overwhelmingly supportthe current president.

On multiple occasions, the editorial board scathed members ofStudent Senate on a very personal level, once claiming that asenator’s “loyalty is not to the studentbody.”

Alas, the plague of apathy that entrenches the Hilltop isexacerbated when those that accept leadership positions arerewarded for their efforts with childish invective, published fourtimes weekly for thousands to read.

The Senate devotes its time and energy to improving the lives ofSMU students. An insufficient number of students are willing toaccept the challenges commanded by the duties of these offices, andthey should be praised for their mere willingness to fulfill theseresponsibilities.

However, elected leaders, whether student senators or Americanpoliticians, place themselves in the public spotlight, and theymust accept criticism for their decisions. In fact, a leader shouldwelcome input to better serve constituents.

And no citizen should passively accept dictums merely because heor she voted for a particular leader or belongs to a certainpolitical party.

However, the manner in which these beliefs were expressed bylast year’s column writers crossed the boundaries ofdecency.

Criticism is great, and discourse even better, but maliciouscensure solves nothing.

A reform of Daily Campus commentaries would greatly improve thestudent body’s ability to develop mature and enlightenedbeliefs.

The oppositional opinions expressed last semester must reshapetheir foundation using truth and rationality instead of hearsay andemotion.

Additionally, the slant of the commentary page must be leveledthrough the publication of commentaries with contrasting opinions,formed with the same considerations for educated rhetoric. Themajority opinion cannot criticize what others have written unlesswe enter the forum for discourse and express our beliefs. Here Iam.

The new editors of our school’s fine newspaper provide anoptimistic indicator that such discourse will become commonplace onthe editorial page.

An effort is being made to produce side-by-side commentaries,allowing readers to consider various perspectives on an issue.Editorials are approached with an emphasis on compromise, andmembers of the editorial board are encouraged to write dissentingstatements to ensure that all voices are fully articulated.

However, assuming that a small, unelected group of writers canadequately represent every aspect of an issue is fallacious andclose-minded.

Active participation by the entire campus is necessary for trulymeaningful discourse. Letters to the editor are encouraged from anystudent, faculty or staff member.

Additionally, the newspaper’s Web site includes anexcellent bulletin board system for commenting on articles andopinion columns. This system is an invaluable tool for theintellectual development of a college student.

On heated topics, such as the Iraq War, engaging discussionsemerged on the message system last year, and members of the SMUcommunity addressed their opinions in a strikingly maturefashion.

Cries of “BUSH SUX” and “BUSH ROX” wereignored in favor of well constructed arguments, and many studentsillustrated a level of political awareness that is unobtainable bymerely listening to cable news while brushing one’steeth.

To foster positive and worthwhile discourse, please rememberthat every opinion has a right to be expressed. Keep an open mindwhen examining alternative ideas.

As much as I found last year’s commentaries disagreeable,I appreciated the exposure to different ways of thinking. Ascribingto a certain stance without careful consideration is a dangerousand lazy mistake.

This commentary is, therefore, a call to arms. Whether you votedfor George W. Bush or Ralph Nader in the last election, starttaking an active role in rethinking and affirming your politicalbeliefs.

Whether you are an avid greek member or a soccer player, expressyour opinion about SMU administrative decisions and Student Senatelegislations.

Incite discourse at lunch, leave comments at smudailycampus.com,or send an e-mail to the editorial board.

Refuse to let a tiny minority of commentary writers solelyrepresent the opinion of the student body.