SGA member requests Signal correction
When people tell me they have been misquoted by The Signal, I have always argued on behalf of the reporter or editor.
I was a member of my high school newspaper and I know how hard it is to quote everything someone has said in an interview, a public meeting, or in passing. I guess I made these excuses because I had never been misquoted.
In the Nov. 11 issue of The Signal, I was not only misquoted, but my reported comments were far from the truth.
The article titled “SGA addresses student concerns on spheres” said that “Vice President for Legal and Government Affairs Olaniyi Solebo, sophomore political science major spoke on behalf of (Tucker) Max supporters, saying he did not agree the comic should not come to campus. He referred to Max’s material as ‘funny.’”
Again, I must strongly emphasize that these reported comments are far from the truth.
Whether this is a mistake or a misinterpretation, it is damaging and I feel that I must explain exactly what happened.
During the Nov. 4 Student Government Association (SGA) meeting, I said that I thought the conversation concerning Max and the direction in which it was going was not suitable for an open forum.
When I began, I said I was speaking on behalf of myself and no one else. Never during my comments did I speak on behalf of so-called Max supporters. I urged caution to those commenting during the open forum to think about their duties as elected representatives of SGA.
I believe that many people were speaking on behalf of themselves instead of on behalf of their constituents, which I believe should be the only people represented during a meeting of SGA.
I asked people to empathize with those in the room, like me, who may not have shared their belief that Max should not be allowed to speak on our campus. I said that I would be happy to discuss my reasoning with anyone in private, outside of the General Body.
Please let me offer you the clarity of my convictions — I never said I thought Max was funny. Again, I never said I thought he was funny. I have read his material. He is not funny.
He disgusts me. I find him repulsive and offensive. I think he is abhorrent and obnoxious.
I think his comedy is appalling and atrocious. I also think the same thing of Ann Coulter and her beliefs.
While I know many people say there is a difference between Max and Coulter, I believe that the concerns are the same in each case — we should allow people who hold opinions different from our own to speak on campus, no matter what.
I know that many people will disagree with my position and that is fine — I am afforded my freedom of speech like Coulter and Max. I will not be at any event for Max.
If one were to take place I will be outside protesting him with anyone who chooses to join me. But when I am protesting, I will not be representing SGA or any other organizations and departments with which I choose to identify — I will be representing myself.
I would like an apology in writing from the reporter and The Signal Editorial Board. I would like a correction printed in The Signal, specifically in the “Eye on SGA” and in the corrections section.
Lastly, I would like this letter printed with the other letters to the editor, in its current form.
This is not personal. It angers me and hurts me so much to know that there are people, some who may not know anything about me, who will read that article and think that I believe something I do not.
In life, there are very few things we can control, and I am determined to control my convictions and how they are portrayed.
I strongly believe The Signal can be a reputable and respected paper, but these mistakes belittle and dilute all the hard work I know The Signal staff has done and will continue to do. For those at The Signal who are trying to uphold the standards of a reputable paper, your efforts are appreciated.
Opinions article ‘waste of space’
I just read the latest issue of The Signal and I found the article “100 ways to spend $100,000 besides buying spherical art” extremely unnecessary.
Such useless information should not even be published in our newspaper — it’s a complete waste of space and incredibly uninformative.
First of all, as most know by now, the money could only have been used toward artistic purposes. I understand the article was meant to be humorous, but I did not find it funny or entertaining.
Many of the listed alternatives were also tasteless and insulting, such as the ones involving Mary-Kate Olsen and Miley Cyrus.
I found this article a huge disappointment. Other than that, I love The Signal and am a great supporter of it — I just needed to express my disgust.