Make your own free website on

Reactionary Administration

I am appalled, but not surprised, at the reaction of the administration to the second issue of this newspaper. The article which caused the newspaper to be recalled by the editors discussed a student's opinion on the new Student Center. Although that student's opinion was controversial, it was, more importantly, valid. If the administration truly encourages freedom of speech, then why would they call for the censorship of this controversial opinion? The only conclusion that I can come to is that they found some truth to his message, which they feared could give Menlo an image of insensitivity, as well as cause emotional pain to grieving people. The pain that would have come with the distribution of that article cannot match the loss which has come from its censorship, since it resonated the views of many students and would have forced other students to question their opinions.

When this publication first emerged, I was very encouraged because I thought that a forum finally existed where people could pursue the truth, regardless of how controversial it might be. However, with the censoring of this unnamed student's article, the level of free speech in this newspaper has been limited. The editors, by allowing the administration to strongly influence their decisions, have sacrificed some sovereignty in their (or our) paper.

The validity of a mixed message on substance abuse being presented by the administration should have been addressed. Instead of refusing to let this controversial subject to surface, a representative of the administration should have tried to refute the content of that article. In that manner, students would have been able to make their own decision about the said article, instead of being forced to agree with the administration by not presenting the opposing view.

By John Wang

This page created for The Subterranean Crusader by John W. Earl. Last modified January 28, 1996.