February 24, 2011 Volume CXXIX Issue 5

A Return to that Which Usually
Draws Forth the Ire of

The Boy Who Lived

It is difficult to say whether the College has moved on from the turmoil on campus earlier this month. On one hand, the Courier-Journal and MSNBC have not addressed the situation for quite a number of days. On the other, it still remains to be seen if the student body will experience any real growth over the course of the semester. It seems likely that the most substantive change resulting from the whole ordeal is a legitimate construction of a policy to sort out such incidents in the future. With all that being said, this Back Page is tentatively addressing the “Curious- Racial-Incident-In-The-Nighttime-Kept-Wrapped-Up-Until-Cameras-Showed-Up-But-Then-Was-Promptly-Mishandled” no longer. Glad it is out of the way. Harry Potter references have returned and slightly offensive comments abound.

Unfortunately, due to recent events, this Editor feels as though this Back Page has strayed a bit from its usual undertaking. What “usual undertaking” really means around here is anyone’s guess. However, if the student opinion is not being voiced and if this Editor is not being criticized for being a malignant and destructive rabblerouser, then something surely is amiss. In the spirit of mischief and heinous buffoonery most foul, it is time for a return to some pleasant criticism and questioning of certain practices on campus. Though these concerns may not reflect the views of the student body as a whole, they have come from conversations and comments of undergraduate students around campus this past week. The Back Page is for the People and largely inspired by the People, where “the People” here refers to the significant collection of individuals on campus who like to disagree in general with asinine policy and curious happenings.

First, though anyone will allow that in order to get new students on campus the College must, unfortunately, bring them around when we undergraduate students are still here, a few problems have resurfaced that are worth mentioning. Inklings of a new underground student coalition forming on campus (not likely to be acknowledged or legitimized by the Administration, of course) have surfaced referencing one “Student Coalition Against the Presence of Hundreds of High School Students in the Caf When it is Time for Us to Eat,” or, STCAPHHSSCWTUE for short. Official pronunciation is still under review with meetings to begin in secrecy. It is exceptionally difficult to tell a prospective student that we would love for them to come to Georgetown when he or she is in the process of making the line to sandwiches or Mrs. Joe’s Caesar salad exponentially longer, try as we must. Stirring up equal malcontent amongst hard-working undergraduates is the recent non-violent takeover of the study rooms in the second floor of the LRC for new student interviews. It is also painful for anyone to wish to speak politely with an individual who is precluding him or her from having a quiet place to finish a novel or write a massive essay in due time. Interestingly enough, this Editor is currently studying the fear of Communism prevalent during the Cold War. Interpret as you will.

Second, or third, depending on how the reader feels about the division of paragraphs, it is important to realize the implications of what was written by the Editor-in-Chief, this Editor’s Master and Commander, regarding the College’s contract concerning this paper. If one were to happen to read The Rambler from this past week, which is the Transylvania student newspaper, one would find Georgetown’s peers mocking our College for its blatant absurdity. The idea that staff writers of a student paper could be contractually precluded from any claim to the Constitutional right to freedom of the press, justified by the establishment of President and Provost as “The Publisher,” is truthfully ridiculous. What this essentially means, technically, is that each writer for this paper could be taken out, mobstyle, for printing content contrary to the views of the Dark Lord. The fact that something is in a contract does not mean that it is ethical. Georgetown’s policy regarding the newspaper is officially censorship, regardless of how often such censorship is exercised. To be fair, if the Dark Lord were to actively pull articles, as many fear the Death Eaters are urging him to do, it is evident that this Page and this Editor would likely be the first to go. If funding were available for an independent student paper not attached to the machinations of the workings of an evil genius, it would be nice if such funding were soon reported. Until then, walking a very fine line will have to suffice.

Apologies for any skipping or hopping back and forth over that line this Editor may commit from time to time.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: