Dear Argus,

Your editorial and editorial cartoon in the Sept. 30 edition showed a shallow level of analysis of campus events that is, sadly, indicative of a downward trend in quality and objectivity in the Argus.

Firstly, your editorial cartoon directly implied that those student protestors from last year didn’t vote in this year’s WSA election. That is an almost laughably nonsensical jump to conclusion. Do you really think that those students who fought for a more adequate administration response to campus concerns, attended WSA meetings, and helped advocate for the passage of a WSA resolution in support of student voice were amongst those who didn’t vote? Get a clue, Argus.

Secondly, your editorial’s characterization of last year’s protests in relation to WSA elections is entirely off-base. Your article implied that those students who stormed Bennet’s office last year are career activists who like to cause a ruckus but turn up their noses at the idea of voting for WSA representatives.

The whole point of the protests last year was not to be anti-WSA or anti-voting, it was to protest the fact that students don’t have an adequate voice on campus. Last year proved that the WSA itself is routinely ignored by the administration. Remember the assembly’s gender-neutral housing poll last year, where an overwhelming majority of students (over 90%) supported freshman gender-neutral housing options? It was disregarded by an administration that thought it knew what was better for queer students than the students themselves.

Perhaps you should be writing an article asking why students didn’t exercise their right to vote instead of paternalistically berating students in your preachy, told-ya-so editorials. Maybe you’ll find that the reason students are generally apathetic towards the WSA is because last year showed the campus that Bennet and his administration cronies don’t even listen to our elected representatives.

And since when did “activist” become such a bad word in your newspaper? A large proportion of last year’s protestors were students of color or members of the queer community. Many, myself included, felt that an obligation to stand up for minority student voices because of their ethnicity and/or sexual orientation. And for many, also including myself, last year was their first, and still most recent, taste of activism.

To label us all “cradle-to-the-grave activists” is not only an overgeneralization of those who protested last year, but also belittles the causes of all those who have ever fought for social consciousness, whether it be in the “real” world or at Wesleyan. To try to lump all activists into one negative stereotype of activism is to use the same tactic certain right-wing political members of our society have used to turn the term “liberal” into a vile epithet synonymous with “traitor.” I know for a fact that one of the Argus executive editors attended an anti-war protest in New York their freshman year. Should he, she, or ze be derided as a “cradle-to-the-grave activist” for being at one protest?

Sadly, this is not the only example of the Argus ignoring deeper issues and misrepresenting campus events. Remember the case of Taylor Bentley ’06 from last year? Mr. Bentley, a candidate for Senior Class Vice President, broke a regulation requiring campaign posters to be a certain distance from campus computer facilities.

He was ratted out by a fellow candidate and was taken off the ballot. Lucky for Mr. Bentley, it seems he was cozy with the Argus, which printed a blatantly one-sided editorial and article blaming the WSA for the mess.

Granted, the WSA’s election rule was pretty dumb in its own right and the WSA is a flawed organization in many ways. But it was shameful to see the Argus bending over backwards to create a victim out of Taylor and to paint the WSA as a bloodthirsty paramilitary election squad when they were just enforcing an old rule. There was no examination as to why class officer elections are so cutthroat and dirty, with candidates snitching on each other for tiny rule violations. There was no focus on the fact that Mr. Bentley was unable to follow a pretty simple election guideline, and played himself up as the victim when he was really just a victim of his own mistake or incompetence. Where was the objectivity? Why was the seemingly objective Argus happy to take Taylor’s side in this shitfest?

Let’s see objectivity and in-depth reporting restored to the Argus. I’m tired of being preached to by a paper that can’t even get its analysis straight.