Endorsement Editorial Criticized Too Much
After reading today's issue of The Tech, I was appalled. Usually, I don't bother to read it, but today a particular article drew my attention.
While it's lovely that the editorial board has put such thought into who would be the best Undergraduate Association president, it was wholly inappropriate to trash John S. Hollywood '96 and Sheldon W. Myrie '95. I don't personally know anything about Myrie. I have, however, worked with both Carrie R. Muh '96 and Hollywood as an Interfraternity Council representative on the UA Council and as a member of the Student Life Committee, which Hollywood chairs.
I can say with certainty that Muh has worked many hours to improve the UA. Throughout the term, she encouraged many of the council representatives to become more involved. She was present and active at every UA Council meeting I attended. To say she has "accomplished little as vice president" shows that the "editorial board" has accomplished little in its attempt to understand the UA.
Although I am only a freshman, from what I understand, the UA Council was practically defunct until this year. We are starting to actually do things that affect student life as opposed to simply running the UA. Muh is one of the people responsible for starting the UA on a path to better serve the undergraduates it claims to represent.
As for Hollywood, I would have to say that he has been more than dedicated to his positions in the UA Council. The editorial contradicted itself when it stated in one sentence that John has done impressive things with the Survey on Undergraduate Life and the UA Housing Report, and then in the next that he only offers "a single view of an issue, rather than assessing the complete range of student opinion." I was there when John was trying to coordinate the Survey on Undergraduate Life, and the only thing on his mind was a range of student opinion. This range of opinion he has brought to MIT administrators, with whom he spends incredible amounts of time representing the undergraduate community as a whole, and has managed to take amazing strides towards getting administrators to accept student opinion.
By now the elections are over, and I seriously hope that the irresponsibility shown by the editorial board in printing the editorial has not swayed too many students' personal opinions. When one newspaper is basically the only source for information on a campus, it accepts a huge responsibility to remain impartial. In affairs where much more objective information is readily available, editorials are a wonderful tool. However, in this case, this editorial was inappropriate. The Tech has not seen the whole involvement of Muh and Hollywood in the UA this term as would one who has worked with them, and to present opinions based on partial facts and guess-work shows a lack of professionalism within the editorial board.
Stephanie M. Zielenski '98