In the first column I wrote this semester, I introduced “What’s Up?,” a column designed to be positive in nature and free from the ranting and raving you might see in a typical op-ed piece. I think I succeeded. It was hard at times, but I disguised my criticisms as much as I could.
The biggest thing I wanted to fight against by taking a different approach to writing was the almost violent back-and-forth arguments that writers get into with each other.
My hope in writing “What’s Up?” was that this kind of thinking would catch on among other op-ed writers. Now, I am not saying that I had anything to do with this because I do not know if this is the case, but I am pleased to report that there are new rules for The Daily Campus Opinion section starting next semester. I received an e-mail about this a couple weeks ago. The e-mail said, “We will not run columns that specifically address/ attack other writers/ editors… Columns commenting on other opinion pieces will not be published.” The e-mail continued, “We need to establish some general guidelines to make the paper the best it can be.”
I just wanted to praise The Daily Campus Editorial Board for coming to this conclusion. I agree that the paper will only be free to be the best it can if it avoids being a discussion board for disgruntled complainers. While there is nothing wrong with being concerned about something, whining does not help anything. Hopefully, these new rules will help give the Daily Campus Opinion section a more positive edge and not make its readers downcast.
So I guess you could say that I am praising rules ths week. We all hate the idea of rules, but I do not know of anyone who really wants to abolish all rules and regulations in one fatal swoop. Even the craziest anarchists and the most extreme libertarians realize that rules and guidelines are good to keep people in check. No one wants a world in which people can decide in which direction they want to drive down the freeway on a given morning.
Of course, rules are arguably best when self-imposed, and it is always nice to have rules around so that you can have the luxury of breaking them. The poet who did not know the rules of poetry would be at a loss for how to use poetic license. The artist who did not know artistic conventions would be clueless as to what would shock the art world. Rules like these are amazing because it is so useful to bend and break them.
In short, no matter how you look at it, nothing would work without rules. There would not even be such a thing as anarchy or libertarianism without rules. Without rules, what would there be to rebel against? Every conceivable aspect of political and artistic life depends on rules. Here’s to rules.
In conclusion, I would like to say that it is always a pleasure to distribute my thoughts to the SMU campus and I look forward to doing it again next semester.
In fact, I have a new idea for next semester: “Welcome to Humanity.” I will still write in the same vein as “What’s Up?” but with a more serious tone. My column next week (the last column of the semester) will actually be an introduction to next semester’s theme.
Good luck with finals.
Matt Brumit is a junior Humanities major. He can be reached for comment at [email protected].
