I recently read the story about homosexual rights on campus. I feel as though the other side of the story was vague and misrepresented. The most irritating thing is that the letters to the editor that explained very well the perspective many students on this campus that love and cherish the lives of everyone regardless of orientation, sexual or otherwise. These letters were placed in the back of the April Fool’s newspaper, of which were mixed in many facetious stories. I appreciate the thought to even include the letters and voice of the students in the paper, but I feel like it was purposefully slighted.
The original story itself made me feel wrongly accused. I have never, and would never purposefully alienate or abuse someone because of their sexual orientation. I also felt like that story was extremely biased, and the reporter did not do his or her due diligence in writing about both parties equally. In other words, this full page colored story seemed like a rash generalization of the opinion of a few and should have not been a story because it was incomplete. It was merely an opinion of a minority group. Now, the opinion of the majority at Olivet are not heard correctly because they got half of a page, not colored, in the back of newspaper that was meant to be a joke for April Fool’s day.
Please reconsider the voice of all of the student body before printing illegitimate information in a major story. That story made no positive difference if that was the intention of the self-proclaimed ‘abused.’ The only thing that story did was make me want to resent all homosexual students I meet because I feel like I was being called out on a generalization of the student body and Olivet as a whole.
I am not a very eliquent writer, but I do know what solid journalism looks like, and that story did not represent it.
Thank you for your consideration.
– Tim Hall
Student responses were submitted to the GlimmerGlass by volunteer writers and presented as opinions, which both were. Your statement that the GlimmerGlass “purposefully slighted” those stories is therefore incorrect. Carrying these on the opinion pages stressed their serious nature. These pages do not carry color.
The original article, from the March 18 issue, was an in-depth story, covering all sides of the issue and was printed in the appropriate section, the In-Depth section. That section always carries color.
The debate is continued in this issue.
To make light of this matter would have been inappropriate. (A list of the fun April Fools stories appears on page 3.)