Zachary Lazarus,
The Wespeaks you have written incorrectly accuse me of burying Wespeaks that I do not agree with. I should have printed your inaccurate criticism of me in the first place, along with a response, but there was a lapse in my editorial judgment. I have apologized several times via e-mail for not printing the sentence you mention, and I apologize publicly now. But I maintain that you were inaccurate. We lay out Wespeaks based on what fits where, as well as what would be most interesting to the Wesleyan community, but we do not lay them out based on whether or not we agree with them.
Generally, when I know something in a submitted Wespeak is untrue, I will call that writer, who will decide whether or not we should run it as is. In this case, it was well into the wee hours of the morning when I read your Wespeak, but I should have called you anyway. As you noticed, we have printed Wespeaks with uninformed or clearly incorrect criticism several times this semester, though they usually are not directed at one person, but we have also corrected Wespeaks. For instance, I remember approving a change of an error in a Wespeak, spotted by another editor, that claimed Mohammed married a four-year-old girl.
Alas, the Wespeaks are meant to be a very open forum, which is why there are very few we have decided not to run this semester, but we will not run personal attacks like the one you submitted for the April 4 issue. Despite adding, “P.S. This is not a personal attack,” it was a personal attack, and I stand by my decision to withhold its publication. Publishing it would have likely sparked a barrage of Wespeaks with similar addendums.
On the whole, I’m glad that there are Wespeaks criticizing the Argus. It shows that people read it and people care, and people should read the Argus and other publications critically. We certainly publish Wespeaks critiquing the Argus, as long as they comply with the Argus policy, located on the second page of every issue.
Best,
Matt DiBlasi
Leave a Reply