I would like to address Tori Rowe’s Wespeak “In Remembrance of 9/11.” It has been nine years since the September 11th attack, yet we as a nation continue to feel its affects. Tragedies such as these have numerous repercussions that do not fade quickly and I do believe that it is appropriate to commemorate the victims. However, I take issue with Rowe’s form of remembrance.

Rowe begins the piece by stating that and I directly quote, “the Wesleyan College Republicans wishes to honor the 9/11 victims.” At the bottom of the piece, when Rowe’s identity is described, we are told that she is a member of the class of 2013 and the President of the Wesleyan College Republicans.

Now perhaps Rowe and the Wesleyan College Republicans had a meeting this past week and agreed that they wanted to publish a piece about 9/11 in the Argus and that they felt that they only could speak from the perspective of their group because they only had to consent of all the group members. And perhaps Rowe identified herself as the president of the College Republicans in order to give validity to that claim of group consensus. However, this is not how the article came across.

By emphasizing Rowe’s political party, the article became not about who was being commemorated but about who was doing the commemorating.

In a community that has been so affected by 9/11, to imply that only the Republicans on campus are extending such condolences and to use this national sorrow as a political platform is a divisional action. We should use the commemoration of this day as a way to unify the nation rather than cause further divides.
Rowe does end the article by asking the Wesleyan community to “please join us in remembrance.” Still, why was it ever necessary to have begun the article with the premise that it is one group doing the commemorating and having to ask the rest of the community to join them?

The article would have been quite different had she been speaking from a personal viewpoint. In this piece however she is speaking from the perspective of a group that is a local representation of a political party and the implication of her words thus take on a different meaning; one that carries greater associations.

My disgruntlement isn’t just about Rowe’s piece, but how for almost a decade, our politicians have used this event and distorted its meaning and imagery to craft a narrative useful for their political means.

I am not an idealist and I do not believe such persuasive tactics of political media will end. I just hope that in our own college paper and environment, any commemoration or memorial in honor of victims should be inclusive rather than exclusive. It is exclusivity that leads to further events of tragedy.