<an style="font-weight: bold">Regarding last week’s “An unapologetic endorsement of Jinai Bharucha”
This past week The Carletonian published a viewpoint piece entitled “An unapologetic endorsement of Jinai Bharucha for CSA Vice-President” by Alex Higgin-Houser. Since that time, The Carletonian has received complaints about the publishing of the piece. The student targeted in the piece has been negatively affected by its publication, and for this unwanted and undeserved stress The Carletonian apologizes.
The discussion involving this issue, however, has made it important for The Carletonian to emphasize the Viewpoint Submissions Policy, the last section of which is re-printed below:
“Ultimately, whether any letter or article – solicited or not – is printed is the sole decision of The Carletonian. The opinions expressed on the Viewpoint Page represent the views of the contributors and not the opinions of the Viewpoint Editor or other Carleton staff members. Questions or concerns regarding this policy may be directed to the Viewpoint Editor.”
The Viewpoint Page of The Carletonian is a forum of student opinion, and during an election season these opinions may be controversial and contentious. It is the role of the Viewpoint Editor to decide when a submission is inappropriate to print to avoid incidents when students may be hurt by such possibly contentious viewpoints such as this in the future.
Residential Life’s decision on Northfield Option curious
Several weeks ago, when room draw numbers were officially announced, Residential Life told rising seniors that a total of 100 spots for Northfield Option would be available to students. ResLife’s decision was based on the new dormitories, which have the capacity to bring many students back to campus. The decision also spurred the debate of exactly how much of a “residential campus” Carleton is.
However, since the time, ResLife has since changed its policy. In an e-mail sent out to rising seniors, the new decision read that 55 students of the rising senior class were currently living Northfield Option, and that those students expressed concern becuase they had “spent a deal of time and money investing in furniture and supplies to live off campus and have a strong desire to retain their off campus status.”
Thus, for those 55 students currently living in Northfield Option, ResLife gave three choices:
1. Do nothing and use their 2009-2010 lottery numbers normally during the Northfield Option draw.
2. Choose to accept an individual Northfield Option offer for themselves before we start the regular draw. This would be for individuals only.
3. Choose to live in campus housing. If someone chooses this option, they would be given priority to choose housing in one of the two new residence halls. Because the opening of the new halls is having an impact on Northfield Option, these would be the only buildings where priority would be given.
This means, then, that because of the exceptional draw number that 55 students of the rising senior class had last year, other students will suffer. This does not seem fair to all students involved. Now, students who may once have had a chance at obtaining Northfield Option likely missed out. Room Draw is annually a contentious and controversial event, but the choice that ResLife made to give preference to a specific group of students is puzzling.