Dear Editor,

I write to you today in order to condemn your newspaper’s policy of publishing anonymous letters to the editor (LTEs), which was done by The Statesman as recently as the April 16, 2012 (Volume LV, Issue 26) edition.  Publishing anonymous LTEs provides a forum for personal attacks without any accountability, providing a powerful avenue for smearing a target without needing to reference any facts or evidence.  Furthermore, anonymity often leads to disruptive remarks that diminish the quality of discourse, as is doubtless your experience and that of your readers who take part in discussions on online forums.  Anonymity online often leads to vulgarity, “trolling” and “flaming”, which have no place in respectable print media.

While LTEs written by the public can be a powerful tool to criticize a policy or even the character of a politician, which may serve the public good, anonymous LTEs targeting a politician can easily be written by a rival in order to give the appearance of public opposition.  Anonymity deprives the reader of the ability to ascertain the motivations of the author.  As a comical example, suppose that an anonymous LTE derided The Statesman as “a rag whose dual purpose is to kick-start the recycling programs of the communities where it is distributed and to serve as toilet paper for poor college students.”  The sting of such an attack would be greatly mitigated, however, if the author was known to be the editor of a rival newspaper.  The publication of an anonymous attack can inflate the private grudge of a rival or detractor into the public condemnation of the silent majority.

Finally, contrary to journalistic standards that give the target of a critical story the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing, LTEs ambush their targets, who must wait until after the damage to their reputation is done before being able to respond.

I therefore urge The Statesman to modify its guidelines for submission, to state that opinion pieces and LTEs cannot be published anonymously.  Additionally, where LTEs directly criticize an individual, I urge you to give an opportunity for the target of an LTE to write a rebuttal that is published simultaneously, so that your readers have the benefit of both sides to the story in forming their opinions.

Sincerely yours,

Esam Al-Shareffi

Many of you may have seen my face around campus over the past two weeks. I am the guy with blond hair running for CAS Senator. Sadly, that is the best description I can give for you because my face on a poster is often the only information that people have about me before I am able to tell them what I stand for and what my qualifications are. I am not writing to campaign for myself, rather I am writing to express my overall opinion of this election.

By far the biggest complaint of many candidates in this election has dealt with the Elections Board. From the first day of information sessions, when a room was failed to be booked, potential candidates were informed that the Board would strictly enforce the rules and regulations of both USG and the campus. However, this was never the case. First, the board made an illegal extension of the deadline to submit intent forms because there were vacant and unopposed positions. The USG code states that 24 hours of notice must be given to the student body in order for them to submit feedback on such an extension. However, the announcement was simply posted on the USG website on Tuesday, March 12 (the day before the new deadline). This is an extreme violation because candidates, such as myself, were denied the opportunity to argue against such an extension.

Second, during the petitioning process, multiple people, including myself, reported infractions such as electioneering within 100 feet of a SINC site and petitioning without a platform statement attached. To my knowledge, people were only disqualified because they did not have enough petition signatures. Then, during campaigning and elections week, there were more violations including illegal posting on surfaces such as walls, doors, and glass. Seawolves for Change wore t-shirts advocating their party throughout campus including, but not limited to, the library, where they were within 100 feet of a SINC site. Members of my party might as well have walked through the library with signs saying “S.A.F.E.” As current USG Senator David Adams put it, “If I can’t trust you with less than a page of posting policy, how am I supposed to trust you with a 137 page long code?” Eventually the Elections Board did give warnings for these violations with time for correction but did not take action when violations were repeated. Eventually this turned into a battle to get everyone disqualified and no party was exempt. I was targeted by someone writing my name on another candidate’s poster. And during all this the Elections Board did not disqualify one person. It is their duty to take action. Think of how much worse our national elections would be if the Federal Election Commission also did not take action against infringing candidates.

The Elections Board aside, there were other things that made me sick. While this election saw some of the most creative campaigning tactics, there was one thing in particular that vexed me. I must be clear that I do not intend to bash Seawolves for Change, and I do apologize in advance because I do have friends in the party, but I believe that it was one of the most tactless methods of campaigning and I hope that it is never repeated. Using the school’s mascot as a party icon and slogans like, “We are all Seawolves,” gives the appearance that it is sanctioned by the University. I could not distinguish a “Stony Brook Athletics” shirt from a “Seawolves for Change” shirt. It is propaganda that could make students feel disenfranchised from the school for not voting for the party.

Again I ask that you not perceive this as a jab at another party because I have a problem with parties in general, including my own. Joseph Santangelo, a candidate for CAS senator, wrote to The Statesman last week saying, “The several parties are a little more than a ruse that employs a catchy name to get votes.” While I disagree with almost everything else that he wrote, this statement is all too accurate. In the USG elections, parties are not about increasing or decreasing expenditures, raising or cutting taxes, or whether or not utilizing socialized healthcare is right; they are about us versus them. USG parties are about electing people who stand for something no different than someone on the opposing party. They are about maximizing the number of votes that a candidate can get. Candidates tell their friends to vote for their party without explaining anything about what they stand for.

The result is informal straight-ticket voting. While this method of voting is practiced in many states it causes many undergraduate students to vote for people that they know nothing about. It ruins the democratic process of voting for representatives that actually represent one’s interests. Instead of voting for the most qualified person, people who have no knowledge about Senate, Rules of Order or how USG operates are elected in. Many times I heard people saying things such as, “Vote for my party because we will try to get fraternities/sororities funding.” Statements such as this err in two ways: USG is unable to fund fraternities and sororities because they are selective in membership (the same with honor societies) and voters are led to believe that these candidates and their parties are capable of impossible tasks. The effect is people receiving votes for lying to student body and leaving them with high expectations of that party.

Unfortunately we may never be able to rid USG of large parties as people would argue that it would be taking away the students’ right to collectively assemble. However, it is possible because the laws for forming parties are outlined in the USG code, a document which is much easier to amend than the USG constitution.

As this election comes to a close I find myself to be increasingly sick from all that has happened. I have been pitted in supporting friends over other friends and at this point in time (Thursday, the night before voting ends) I still have yet to cast my votes. I have seen rules go unenforced, attempts to tarnish my name, the school’s mascot being used as a tool against other students and students fighting against each other to be the one to bring change to campus. It is abhorrent. I may not be elected, but I only hope that these issues will be corrected by next year’s governing body.

For the better part of three years, I have served as an elected official of the student body; I have always done what I believed was right and served the students faithfully, providing them with the government and representation they deserve. I cannot in good conscience sit this election entirely on the sidelines as that would be doing my constituents a disservice, despite the negative repercussions intervention will cause me. As a retiring elder stateswoman, I offer the following thoughts to the student body as it evaluates the candidates and determines for whom it will cast its ballots.

I advise you that picking a presidential candidate is a decision to be made between you and your gut. Remember, the biggest and most important task of the USG President is to be the face of the organization and thus represent the students to administration. Pick someone to whom you would feel comfortable entrusting your voice. At present, I would not trust any of the candidates, and therefore I am electing not to vote for any.

As for the Vice Presidency, here’s where I can provide you with true insight! This is the most involved and intricate position in USG; the EVP obviously runs the Senate, but he also is responsible for the internal operations of the organization. It is therefore necessary to have someone in this position who is loyal first and foremost to the students and to the organization/president second. A bit of conflict should be expected and is a good thing as compromise is more likely to favor the students. As far as I’m concerned, there is one qualified candidate running, and the other two, if elected, would disserve the students by not providing independent thought, not having the necessary experience, and by being personally loyal to their selected presidents, not the student body.

As someone who has served in this position for over a year, I can definitively tell you that in order for someone to be successful, he needs to have been in the Senate first. If you look at the experience of the three candidates, only one, Jason Sockin, has been a voting member of the Senate. Of the other two, one has proxied (after which she reportedly said she never wanted to attend another Senate meeting), and the other has not attended a single meeting. The fact that two of the candidates have not been attending Senate meetings is disturbing; further proof that these two ladies would disserve the students.

Turning to the Treasury, again, it is a competition between experience and naivety.  Despite his past, Allen Abraham is clearly the better choice. As a Senator, he had great organizational vision. After almost a semester away, he has had the time necessary to step back and examine the Government and now he has many ideas about how to modify processes and have USG better serve the students. I know questions will be raised about his resignation, but he has truly matured from the experience and has learned a valuable lesson. He will be of even greater value to the students now. Also, after hearing his opposition speak at a recent LegReview meeting, it is clear that Cyril has a dearth of organizational knowledge and a disturbing bias which could disenfranchise a large number of students on campus.

As for the other vice presidents, I’m thrilled that Amanda Cohen is running unopposed. She is truly doing an amazing job as VP of Clubs and Organizations and the students have acknowledged her dedication, sincerity, and helpfulness. She has excelled since taking office and I’m thrilled the students will continue to have her serving them next year. She truly is the best woman for the job and I wish her well. The students are really lucky to have her.

The only other vice presidency I will discuss is the Vice President of Student Life. The VP of Student Life is primarily responsible for the activities of the USG SAB. It is no secret that this agency is the one that causes the most grief and the most drama for USG, and it is the most expensive. It is therefore important to have an engaged and competent man in this position. Current RHA President Nick Ela is the right choice. In contrast to the drama and insanity of the agency, he is level-headed, calm and constantly brainstorming ideas about how to improve student life and USG as a whole. It is obvious from his time spent giving out free hugs in the SAC to attending USG SAB meetings, that improving student life is a priority for him. His candidacy is not an intended stepping stone to the presidency, but truly an attempt to improve the student experience.

I won’t address the other positions, but I will leave you with a thought on the Senate: pick wisely. You do not want a collegial Senate. A friendly Senate allows the Executive Council to metaphorically get away with murder. The Students need active and involved Senators to keep the power-hungry Executive Council in check. Having a variety of ideas, experiences, and voices in the Senate will promote lengthy debate and, as pointed out by James Madison in Federalist #10, create the best legislation. Elect Senators who are not afraid to ask questions, state their opinions, and challenge things that look wrong.

Only you will be with you when you make your decisions about whom to vote. I’m only providing my opinions as someone who has put her blood, sweat and tears into USG.  Remember, whoever gets your vote gets your voice. Pick only the people who you believe will represent you effectively. Choose wisely.

Now, I don’t mean to call out any of the current staffers.  I absolutely respect the time and effort you put into writing and editing the paper (trust me I know), but bring back the fun.  Push the boundaries.  Write things that get you border line sued.  If not for yourselves, at least do it to pay respect to the staffers that came before you.  Pay homage to the road we paved for you; the road that was layered with dirty condoms, explicit lesbian sex stories, and Beerfests.  Do it because you can still do it.  Trust me; once you graduate you won’t be able too.  If you do decide to go to law school, grad school, med school, or any other “professional” institution you will be forced to write dry articles.  You will no longer be able to write anything inappropriate.  Seriously, push the envelope while you still can.  Bring back the inappropriateness of The Press we all grew to know and love.  Put the dildo back on the wall.

Signed,

Ilyssa Fuchs

Press Alum, 2007

Life sometimes feels like a riDdle.  It is true that with every step we take, it is always one step closer to the grave.  We have no way to truly go back in timE and defy our own death.  Maybe I have been going about this situation in the wrong manner.  Let me start with a question.  Why have you decided to leave the phrase “Death Egg Zone” off of the back cover of the Press?

I am an advocate for trAdition on this campus.  Stony Brook University is a young school and I believe that we must try to hold onto as many traditions as possible.  WithouT history, how will we know where we came from?  It is the past that we use to define ourselves.  Traditions from the past give us that small glimpse into the inner workings of why we do wHat we do.

Do you know the story bEhind the printing of the phrase “Death Egg Zone” onto the back of the Press?  I wish that I could come up with an elaborate story involving the eating of “sandwiches” and playinG hours of Sonic 2 in the basement of the Union.  The Death Egg Zone is the last board in the beloved Sega Genesis game Sonic 2.  Maybe past editors found it ironic that this phrase was found on the last page.  It was a signature endinG each issue of the Press.

Whatever the true buZz behind the phrase, it is a true Stony Brook Tradition.  It is at least over five years old.  The oldest Stony Brook traditional event is Only 25 years old.  That means that the phrase at hand is at least a fifth of the age of such a highly regarded traditional event.  I always hope to returN to Stony Brook as an alumnus and expErience a traditional issue of the Press like it was meant to be; with a happy ending.

Love,

Concerned

——————————————————-

You again!? Get off our lawn.

The Press

I just read the article “Zebra Path: Victory or Bolshevism?” (which was posted on July 8, 2008) that you wrote about the public art walkway that I originally painted in 1981. I just became aware of recent articles regarding the decision by the SBU Student Government to repaint the “Red-Hot Zebra Path” back to its original colors. I like your comments about the red color that was painted over my original design. I understand that the title “Zebra Path” is politically incorrect for the “interest of the zoological society.” The reporters adopted that name after they saw my art work and it sort of stuck after that. I wrote a correction to the comments for the AAEZINE organization to explain that the Zebra Path was originally intended to reflect my artistic vision of the simple black and white yin and yang theory; but everyone called it the Zebra Path because that was what they saw. Please contact Ja Young at AAEZINE to read the editorial comments by me. It should be published on March 7^th. If you are on Facebook, I posted some original black and white photos on the SB group site. I also visited the campus last summer to see the red candy-cane lane for myself. I wanted to secretly repaint it during the July 4^th weekend to surprise everyone when they returned to school, but I didn’t have time. I had to return to ERAU, an aeronautical university in Daytona Beach, Florida where I currently teach English courses to international students. I added a funny story about the controversy in my reading and writing class. We were reading a story about the effects of public art in the United States. I showed both photos of the red and white versus the black and white walkway to my students. They wrote their opinions and critical analysis about the colors not knowing that I was the artist. They had the same opinions as most of the students on campus.

I hope they repaint the walkway back to my original colors with clear, sharp lines. I don’t mind if the Alumni office or the SBU Student Government changes the title of the plaque to give the walkway a politically correct name. In fact, it would be interesting if they give this idea to all the students on campus as a vote for a new name for the walkway. I can’t think of a better way to engage everyone in this process. It keeps public art alive on campus. I would like to see this as part of the repainting process. I would also love to return to SB when it is repainted and/or renamed with my permission. I can get a direct flight on Southwest Airlines from Orlando to Long Island from Friday to Sunday. What do you think about that idea? If you have any comments for me, you can reach me at kimhardiman@gmail.com or my office phone number 386-226-6174.

Regards,

Kim Hardiman, English Professor

ERAU – ERLI

——————————————————-

Professor Hardiman:

Thanks for responding to my article. I actually graduated right before that was published and kind of forgot about the whole issue. It’s kind of funny to see that they’ve kept it red this whole time, after saying it was just a temporary thing.

I’m sure the school would be glad to have you on hand for whatever they decide to do with it. But to be frank, I think what’s called for now is vigilante justice. Revolutionary style. If it’s taken this long for the student government to recommend that it be restored, who knows how long it could take for the administration to get around to it? And they’re just going to send a crew of people whose goal is to get it done fast, not to lay down the crisp lines you originally envisioned.

No, the only thing to do is go back to your July 4th plan and pull a switcheroo while they’re not looking for several hours. I thought about it myself while I was there (albeit with duct tape, not paint) but never pulled it off. The people are behind you. All power to the public artists!

Very truly yours,

Alex Walsh

]]> http://sbpress.com/2010/03/a-letter-from-professor-hardiman/feed/ 0 http://sbpress.com/2009/10/letter-someone-enjoys-reading-us/ http://sbpress.com/2009/10/letter-someone-enjoys-reading-us/#comments Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:39:56 +0000 The Stony Brook Press http://www.thestonybrookpress.com/?p=2097 Hello,

My name is Judit Vall and I am a visiting PhD researcher at Stony Brook. I arrived two weeks ago from Spain and I am going to be here for six months.

I read The Stony Brook Press of September 30th and I found it very interesting. Since I’ve arrived here almost everything looked to me like very “American” (as compared to Europe, I mean) but the discussion about the Health Care Reform in your newspaper was the first thing that I thought could have been done (in this case written) in Europe.

I have lived in several European countries during my studies and I have a couple of points to make particularly to the person that was talking about the values, Tim Paules, and Raina Bedford.

I wanted to ask you whether I could pass by your office one of these days to have a short talk with you about my impressions.

Thanks a lot and congratulations for this very interesting newspaper, you have just captured another fan

Best,

Judit Vall Castello
Marie Curie Research Fellow
Maastricht Graduate School of Governance
P.O. Box 616
6200 MD  Maastricht
The Netherlands
Visiting PhD Research Fellow at SUNY-Stony Brook, New York, from 01/09/2009 until 15/03/2010

——————————————————-

Hey Judit,

Thanks for your kind words. It’s always reassuring to know that people out there are reading and enjoying our socialist propaganda. We always welcome and appreciate input, but we really only listen to it when it’s positive. Come visit us at our office. Basement of the Student Union, room 060. We have weekly staff meetings at 1pm every Wednesday, but you can usually find somebody sleeping on the couch during the week.

In the meantime, we hope you’ll continue to read us as we push our socialist agenda and plot the destruction of America.

best,

The Press

-Ralph Wiggim

——————————————————————-

Dearest Ralph Wiggim,

Animosity between the Patriot and Press dates back thousands of centuries. It all began in the Before Time, an epoch of molten rock, dino-fuck, and curdling cheese. The twin founders of the Press and Patriot, Bob and Mitch, split from the herpetic sore of the great titan Chronos in the cosmos. Bob, the patron saint of the Press, was a stock broker who in his spare time hunted sea elephants. Mitch enjoyed frying turds. One fine Sunday morning in 1986, the twins gathered to build a tree fort. Mitch, an ardent supporter of William Howard Taft, believed only in the Muslim doctrine of cardboard tree forts. Bob’s Scientology background prevented such use of cardboard. A disagreement broke out. In the ensuing “tongue kissing” war, Bob and Mitch suffered lacerated livers. Both were sure they would die. However, a miracle occurred, a miracle that members of Stony Brook University still refer to today as “The Great Rape of ’88.”

Though it occurred in 1994 and not 1988, the assonance was too temping to pass up. A great comet fell from the broiling ether. In it came a black man named Barry Sanders, not to be confused with NFL great Barry Sanders. He was a surgeon, famed throughout Jupiter as a liver repairman/rapist. Rape is actually legal on gaseous planets. Barry Sanders came with a message. He boomed over the land:

Young Bob, Young Mitch, you both are ugly and stupid. Do something useful with your time. And I don’t mean masturbating. Write….

“Write what?” Bob ejaculated.

“Yes, please tell us,” Mitch ejaculated.

STOP EJACULATING AND LISTEN! You, Bob, are an anti-social fetus-head. You look like a fetus. You will never get laid. And you, Mitch, are an uptight, cock-gobbling, sociopath. No one likes you or the pogs you play with. Each of you must found a newspaper. In it you will write many scribble-scrabbles. Some people will read them. Eventually you will both make newspapers that will hate each other because you are both insecure, lazy, fuck-ups. I hate you all and I hope your deaths are painful. Good night.

Bob and Mitch sat beneath a tree and understood their destinies. Bob ran to a gas station to print the first issue of the Press on beaver hide. Mitch ran to the nearest toxic waste dump to turn a glowing blue shard of feces into the first issue of the Patriot. Both newspapers were commercial failures. In time, as the newspapers became legible, tensions grew. Bob and Mitch liked different hamburger condiments. They tried to sepukku each other. The twins finally succumbed to colon cancer in early 2004. Since then, their remains have rotted beneath the great Math Tower.

So you see, the answer to your question is simple. The Press and Patriot hate each other because of history. We’re glad to have helped you.

-The Press

After reading your article last week on Obama and McCain’s policies towards gays and lesbians I was surprised to see that you never mentioned Ralph Nader as a candidate or any of his policies toward the gay community.  As a gay independent who is still unsure about whom I am voting for, I would appreciate if you could discuss his policies so I have a full picture of the policies of all three candidates.   Thanks so much.

Sincerely,
Still Straddling the Fence

Dear Still Straddling,

I appreciate your concern that I did not look at all the candidate’s policies.  I agree with you that in order to give voters the full picture of all the candidates, one must start by including all the candidates and their policies regarding all issues, but in this case issues that directly affect the gay community.  After doing a little research I am now able to provide you with the facts behind Nader’s policies.  Nader, like Obama, supports equal rights for gays and lesbians as well as equal rights for same-sex couples.  Furthermore, Nader opposes a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and same-sex unions and believes that same-sex unions are a step in the right direction, but are only a starting point because they do not actually afford same-sex couples all the rights that marriage does.  Moreover, Nader believes that everyone should have equal protection under the law regardless of their sexual orientation and says that, “the only way to ensure full equal rights is to recognize same-sex marriage.”  I personally believe that Nader’s policies regarding the gay and lesbian community are positive, but as we all know it is highly unlikely that a third party candidate will be elected. It is in my opinion that anyone who believes in Nader’s policies should vote for Obama rather than McCain, or just vote for Nader himself.  Hope that clears things up.

Sincerely,
Ilyssa Fuchs
(Special thanks to www.votenader.org for the information obtained for this article)