This past week, my article in issue six of the Carletonian was the subject of criticisms by Maddy Halloran and Michael Goodgame. They argued that I had no evidence for my views, which were not only false and unfair to CUT, but (as Mr. Goodgame charges) downright “hateful” and “spiteful.” I concede that I ought to have more clearly referenced my sources in the piece.
Everyone wants to be loved. It’s as simple as that. While mulling over this week’s Viewpoint topic, I couldn’t come up with anything clever or witty to say. No matter how hard I tried, it just ended up sounding cheesy.
If a stranger on the street asked me about the dating culture at Carleton, I’d likely tilt my head, squint my eyes and let out a long, uncertain “um”--because the fact remains: I don’t sense that there even is an overwhelming dating culture at Carleton.
So for the first time this term we have more space in the Viewpoint than we have articles to plop in (I’ll cut y’all some slack given the 8th week workload you probably have…), which means I guess I’ve got an hour and a half to come up with 800 words on a topic I’m hilariously unqualified to write about: the Carleton hook-up/dating scene. Should be fun.
There is so much wrong with Hanley’s article that it’s hard to find a starting point. His commentary is so lopsided, so unsubstantiated, so ambiguous, and so factually incorrect that it barely even deserves a response that has any semblance of clear-headedness or articulation.
I was disappointed by your portrayal of the CUT in last week’s issue of the Carletonian. Yes, I happen to live with three members of the CUT senior class, so some may say that I’m a little biased in their favor, but I would like to point out a few specific issues I think any student athlete would have with your article.
I have become increasingly aware of the fact that the public discourse that happens at Carleton is surprisingly intolerant of opinions that stray outside a cage of generic liberalism that we’ve created. Our intolerance is insidious in that it actually stems from one of Carleton’s best traits, which is our community’s deep desire for tolerance. What forms does this curious intolerant tolerance take?
I was reading Time magazine the other day, and I came across an article on actor Benedict Cumberbatch. Now, this may seem like the silliest way to begin an article on women’s rights, but he brought up a term that has been circulating in the media for some time. “Cumberbitches.”
For several years throughout my secondary school days, I often shared in passing with friends and colleagues that I am a “legal” immigrant. In light of recent discussions and debates on campus, this is a misnomer, as this defines itself as opposed to “illegal.”
Warning: there are spoilers, so you’re not allowed to read this if you haven’t watched the show yet, got it?
We -- four of the many moderators of carlmicroaggressions.tumblr.com -- wanted to take this opportunity to explain the purpose of Carleton Microaggressions and talk about some of the criticisms of the site in order to foster a more open dialogue on campus about privilege, oppression, power, resistance, understanding, and the role of the blog within these conversations.
In hopes of spurring a conversation concerning race and general difference on our campus that I think needs to be less focused on political correctness and more focused on the issues at hand, I am writing this article. It will clarify and correct my comments in the Carletonian three weeks ago on the “Carleton Microaggressions” blog and discrimination at Carleton.