On the Topic of "New Vs: Not the Right Way to Go"

To the Editor:The recent opinion piece published in The Exonian last Thursday titled “New Vs: Not the Right Way to Go,” was intellectually irresponsible. While I wholeheartedly agree with the overall premise that the new V's policy will do more harm than good for the student body, the way in which their argument was presented was poorly organized and verged on manipulative. The piece started out strong, but by the end, it seemed to be focused more on a political endorsement than on a defense of a viewpoint behind which many Exonians are rallying. The name Matthew Robbins did not show up until the seventh, or penultimate paragraph of the Op-Ed. At this point, it was clear that the authors were using a manipulative technique. More specifically, the author makes a series of strong statements with which they know the majority of their readers will agree, which in this case was their disagreement with the current proposed V’s policy. Now that the reader has grown accustomed to agreeing with what the author says, the author slips in a few paragraphs that support a completely different topic, which is in this case the election for Student Council President. Although it is true that Matthew Robbins has taken an especially strong stance against the new V’s policy, I have spoken to Joel personally about the issue and it is clear that he also recognizes the need to refine the policy. The Op-Ed attempted to create a subconscious association for the reader between not supporting the V’s policy and voting for Matthew Robbins, but in reality, the choice of who to vote for is much more nuanced.

"A voting decision cannot be represented by a flow chart, or a series of yes or no questions that will result in a certain action."

There would have been nothing wrong with an opinion piece that’s purpose was to endorse Matthew Robbins, while highlighting his position on the new V’s policy as the reason behind that endorsement. Earlier this year, the New York Times editorial board published their endorsement for the Democratic Primary. The article was titled “Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination” and laid out many specific reasons why the editorial board was encouraging the New York Times’ readership to support Hillary Clinton. That is an example of responsible journalism. While the recent Op-Ed in The Exonian did offer specific reasons to support the authors’ viewpoint, the authors presented their endorsement in a less upfront and responsible way. The authors’ endorsement of Matthew Robbins was snuck into the end of an otherwise important and well written article, which highlighted some very good reasons why the new V’s policy should not pass. I encourage readers of that article to assess the piece in two parts. The first part (the first six paragraphs) is an opinion piece, which raises real concerns about the new V’s policy. The second part (the final two paragraphs) is an endorsement of a presidential candidate. It is important to remember that just because one candidate supports a certain policy with which you might agree, that does not mean that they are the only candidate who supports that policy or that you should necessarily vote for them. A voting decision cannot be represented by a flow chart, or a series of yes or no questions that will result in a certain action.http://theexonian.com/2016/04/28/new-vs-not-the-right-way-to-go/To avoid hypocrisy, I would like to point out that this article is not an endorsement of Joel Lotzkar. I would encourage anyone who cares about the topic of Visitations or the Student Council Elections to go on Facebook and read both candidates position on the new V’s policy, as well as their positions on a whole slew of other topics. I also encourage all voters to consider the wide range of issues which matter to this election, and to consider what it takes for someone to actually run an organization as large and as influential as our Student Council. And if you are still not convinced that the recent Op-Ed to which I have been referring throughout this article was intellectually irresponsible, consider this: The New York Times’ article, titled “Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination” ended with the assertion: “Hillary Clinton is the right choice for the Democrats to present a vision for America that is radically different from the one that leading Republican candidates offer.” The recent Exonian Op-Ed, titled “New Vs: Not the Right Way to Go,” ended with, “[Matt] is the candidate that will bring democracy back to student council.”