For some, all publicity is good publicity. For those of us at City on a Hill Press, this isn’t the case.
On Jan. 8, Carolyn Lagattuta sent out another campus-wide e-mail informing students of the administration’s stance on the Science Hill protest. The e-mail briefly covered events since Nov. 7, but in a more irksome maneuver, it provided the student body with a stiff administrative message, as well as the link to the administration’s own Biomedical Building Protest website. [http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/protest/biomedical/]
The website was created to “[Correct] misinformation about LRDP process and the Biomed project,” because, according to the administration, “this particular protest is based on a considerable amount of inaccurate information.”
One of the first links on the website is to a City on a Hill Press (CHP) editorial, called “Protesters: Get out of the Bathrooms,” (Vol. 42, Issue 8). The editorial was a commentary on the graffiti in various campus bathrooms.
But it was incorrectly summarized on the Biomedical Building Protest website: “A City on a Hill Press editorial suggested that the behaviors of these protesters ‘whittle away at the legitimacy of activists whose means are more peaceful and more effective.’”
The editorial did not address the protest on Science Hill, it specifically addressed no more than the graffiti that surfaced in campus bathrooms.
As students who read the editorial will know, the full quote—concerning graffiti and not the Science Hill protesters—is as follows: “Self-righteous and misguided protestations also whittle away at the legitimacy of the activists whose means are more peaceful and more effective. The covert lavatory doodlers are not in solidarity with the activists on Science Hill.”
This was taken entirely out of context.
The administration’s website completely undermines the very point of our editorial, that the various acts of vandalism in the bathrooms were not representative of the tree-sit.
In addition, the Biomedical Building Protest website did not include a link to the “LRDP: Special Issue” edition of CHP, dedicated to deconstructing the LRDP and other related topics.
Furthermore, the administration’s website contains a disproportionate number of sources supporting the LRDP and campus expansion. It is the position of this paper that the administration’s website, which was created to “address the various issues that have been raised,” should include a variety of opinions and viewpoints, rather than just their own.
It is important to respect and fairly represent opposing sources and opinions, especially if the administration is serious about encouraging the “dialogue” they continuously promote.
_The “LRDP: Special Issue” (Nov. 29, Vol. 42, issue 9) and related articles can be found here: https://cityonahillpress.com/archive.php_