Talia Cutler ’27
Executive Opinion Editor
Jason,
How wonderful that net assets went up! My source (Propublica), contrasted revenue with expenses. These are public, if you’d like to look at where I cite my sources, because I do. When you write about assets, I believe we are talking about two different sets of numbers.
I am not sure why you bring up ranking, as I didn’t write negatively about ranking. Glad to see you didn’t try to deny JBS not living in her massive house, though! As for the rest of your article, do not speak on student perspectives when you are not a student. Your “I am big, you are small” attitude is incredibly condescending. You cannot claim that you welcome feedback when you respond petulantly. I am happy to hold a workshop to help you understand this, if you’d like.
Talia Cutler’s response to Associate Vice President Rojas raises questions about both the judgment of the Tripod’s Editor-in-Chief and, equally if not more important, about what work is being done by the paper’s adviser. That this response was allowed to run–seemingly without any editorial intervention by either the Editor-in-Chief or the adviser–is astonishing given its petulance and flippancy.
College newspapers are an opportunity for students to learn about and explore what it means to be a journalist, including sometimes confronting and challenging powerful entities like college administrators, boards of trustees, and so forth. But it should not involve forgetting the basics of good journalism, which include being sure to have multiple sources to support your claims, meeting with and listening to the positions of those in power you are challenging, and writing prose that is strong without being merely splenetic.
Sadly, Cutler’s response suggests that the Tripod has largely abandoned any interest or role it may once have had in the continuing education of its staff and that is a shame. The world of journalism needs more informed argument and less mindless opinion slinging.
This “clapback” (shudder) was really defensive for no reason. I read Rojas’s letter. He wasn’t being pedantic when he offered an open-house workshop on the college financials.
If The Tripod editors were genuinely curious about the college financials – which they should be – then they should jump at the opportunity to ask questions, especially when a very vocal minority on campus seem interested in divestment! Instead, they burned a bridge publicly when challenged. If the phone ain’t ringing, you’ll know it’s The Tripod editors, I suppose. Sigh.
And where was the “I am big, you are small” attitude here? Rojas concluded with this statement: “We are always looking to improve how we serve the college and welcome feedback that is productive.” Seems pretty open and engaging to me.
Well, readers won’t find any objectivity in Cutler’s cutting offering, just a vague condemnation of a supposed condescending attitude, sans examples. And it would have been great if the author extrapolated on the “two different sets of numbers” she has in mind, because net assets is pretty clear-cut.
Whenever I read The Tripod, I always think “why does everyone seem so angry all of the time?” The paper needs more objectivity, more focus on campus issues, and more humility. This sort of bad-faith flippancy is embarrassing.