Debate: Is the ‘Voices’ section simply identity politics or an important platform?

Opinion: all voices are equal and we should not segregate them

By Max Hunter

There is a spectre haunting our universities. It has many forms, and its aims are too diffuse to be known- even to itself. It sprung from a place of good intentions, and many of its effects have been, and continue to be beneficial to the health of our society: to its self-awareness, its sense of justice and equality.

But you can’t observe modern politics without getting the impression that it has somehow gotten out of control. When minority voices are segregated from the voices of everyone else, and when these voices are elevated to some kind of mystical pedestal: that is when we know that liberalism has begun to eat itself. A struggle that started with the admirable, fundamentally humane task of achieving equal rights, has now set itself the unfathomable task of re-defining what those rights are. Our dialogue as citizens has been segregated into distinct arenas – and access to any one of them requires validation by some dubious criterion. Whether that criterion is gender, race or sexuality doesn’t matter. What matters is that we no longer care what someone has to say: we care who they are to be saying it. To all of us, that should set alarm bells ringing. It should fill not only students, but every pedestrian, tax-assessor, brick-layer or journalist with fear. Because we have been down this route before, and we all have something to lose.

To see such a venerable institution as The Student falling prey to this trend is truly saddening. This year the paper piloted its new Voices section. The quality of writing has so far been outstanding; even a cursory glance will convince the reader that these are voices that we desperately need to hear. The problem, as any good post-modernist will tell you, is the structure. Even the existence of such a section carries the idea that some voices are more worthy of attention than others; and that so far they have been barred from participation in the paper’s numerous other sections by…what? What exactly has stopped the timely, well-written content that features in this section from being published elsewhere?

The only thing that distinguishes these ‘voices’ from the voices of everybody else is that they are deemed to have some kind of mystical, indefinable quality: that they come from sources usually (or at least historically) repressed by the power structures that dominate society. That these voices have been repressed, and continue to be repressed in some places, is a historical truth, and sometimes a present-day tragedy. The question we must ask ourselves is this: do those structures still play havoc with this paper’s editorial structure? Are these voices so under siege that they need a segregated arena of their own, entry to which is qualified by a magical criterion that no one understands? Finally, we must recognise that there is a price to be paid in pursuit of this goal. When some voices are deemed more worthy than others, we have started down a dangerous path.

 

A response: some voices need to be elevated as they are not equal

By Karolina Zieba and Dhruti Chakravarthi

In light of the perpetual political turmoil that shadows over global societies, there has always been a huge power fluctuation. Voices of communities across the world, in our very own university, have been immobilised and terminated. ‘Voices,’ an outreach initiative taken by The Student to provide minority groups a platform and safe space to vocalise their views and opinions from a contrasting lens has expanded the diverse thoughts within our society. ‘Voices,’ as an initiative, is not segregating one group from another. It is recognising that we, The Student newspaper, as a largely white cisgender society, have a strong subconscious prejudice.

This safe space has been created for individuals, who might be harmed by that bias, to express their views. It is a response to a segregated society that has been constructed largely by white men, where some voices that were deemed unworthy have been suppressed.

To be able to claim what fundamental equal rights should look like to repressed communities and where their voices should be heard, by a writer identifying as a cisgender white male is beyond unacceptable. To perceive voices, which have been historically stifled and deemed unworthy, as being put on a “mystical magical pedestal,” reflects how the writer continues to view our communities from almost a colonial lens as being “exotic” and “oriental.” To perceive voices that are being shared in a safe space, as such, is a privilege in itself. To take advantage and claim this to be a valid argument to demolish a safe space, is a privilege that a huge majority of society cannot even imagine having.

Our dialogue as citizens has been segregated into distinct arenas. Arenas set by white, straight, wealthy, able-bodied men that were meant to exclude anybody else. When brown people are searched at airports or structural racism prevents a qualified black person from being chosen for a job, those ‘dubious criteria’ affect them in ways that a white man has the privilege of overlooking. Gender, race and sexuality matter to the eyes of the world. Gender, race and sexuality affect people’s lives. Individuals identifying as straight do not have to come out to their families and friends, painstakingly calculating whether losing their loved ones is worth it. Cisgender people do not have to worry if their doctor will help them transition. And thus, undoubtedly, identity affects our relationship to achieve privilege and power in society; it is not separate from the words that come out of our mouths. We cannot separate the art from the artist. We don’t buy Les Femmes d’Alger, we buy a Picasso. At least the wealthy white men who created dubious criteria, putting themselves ahead of everybody else, can buy the Picassos.

We are scared. We are scared for the lives of trans-women of colour whose life expectancy in the United States is barely between 30 and 35 years. We are scared for the minorities who experienced hate crimes at an increase of 17 per cent in 2017/18 in England and Wales from 2016/17.

Looking into any lecture hall at the University of Edinburgh, it appears that some voices are more important than others. In 2016/17 just a mere proportion of 7.9 to 10 per cent of students identified as BME and 11 per cent disclosed a disability. We desperately need to hear those voices and this is why they need to be elevated and be given a safe space. Pretending as though everyone is equal while being aware of the reality is not the way to equality. This is a way of denying minorities the words to express their existence and expecting them to silently assimilate into a prejudiced structure. The foremost step to solving the problem is identifying and acknowledging the harms that have been done from a panoramic perspective.

And we do, as The Student, acknowledge that we are a heavily white, straight society. We have prejudices we want to become conscious of.

We will not pretend that we came out of the womb woke, blessed with a clear understanding of what every minority experiences. The structure of our society might be what’s barring minority voices from participating, but we are working to solve that.

These voices are so structurally under siege that they need an arena of their own; a safe space that will instil a sense of comfort and inclusion, make the privileged aware of the kind of daily trauma they do not have to face. We are not here to decide if someone is unequal enough to get their own section. We, in our minimal efforts, are attempting to make a space for those who haven’t gotten enough space everywhere else. ‘Voices,’ as an initiative, it is not the end-solution. We still observe patterns of inequality in all realms within our society on a regular basis. We have not solved racism. We do, however, try to be conscious of the biases within the society and address it.

A long time ago, wealthy white cisgender men treaded on an unforgivable path where they decided that it was their voices and opinions that were more worthy than others. The Student’s initiative is not the beginning of the divide and we certainly will not be the end, but we also will not stand by idly and watch it happen.

 

Image: Free-Photos via Pixabay

Related News

One Response

Leave a Reply
  1. Steven McJournalist
    Feb 06, 2019 - 11:13 PM

    This response by Karolina Zieba and Dhruti Chakravarthi really is very badly written. You should take more care. The quality of your writing actually does matter. What doesn’t matter is whether anyone agrees or disagrees with you if your sentiment is almost incoherent. You make bold, ahistorical claims and your use of metaphor meanders so freely into what seem to be concrete claims, that your meaning becomes very confused and difficult to follow. The result is a piece of writing that sounds very much like it might be saying something, but under even a cursory glance, really says very little.

    “to vocalise their views and opinions from a contrasting lens has expanded the diverse thoughts within our society”

    What do you mean “vocalise… from a contrasting lens”? Poor choice of preposition perhaps? Can you vocalise something FROM a lens? Don’t you do rather everything that involves a lens THROUGH it? Save perhaps throwing it at someone?

    Has the Voices section of The Student “expanded the diverse thoughts within our society” measurably? Do you mean the society of The Student newspaper? Do you mean Edinburgh society? British society? Western society? Global society? Did you mean “diversity of thought(s)” rather than “diverse thoughts”? Are you stating that The Student already had “diverse thoughts” and that the Voices initiative has merely expanded them, or upon them? Are these all typos? Either way, your expression remains very poor and at least unclear – which is nothing to say of style.

    “In light of the perpetual political turmoil that shadows over global societies…”, seriously? bad. “there has always been a huge power fluctuation”, what does this mean? This is an incredibly weak sentence.

    Even your title lacks smacks of a weak tone: “some voices need to be elevated as they are not equal”, your use of language is almost always clunky, ambiguous and yet without any meaningful nuance. Where’s the snap? This is hardly what you’d expect from even a passable debate piece.

    “we, The Student newspaper, as a largely white cisgender society, have a strong subconscious prejudice.” Do we? What is your evidence of this? If this is your opinion then your presumed commitment to intellectual honesty, journalistic integrity and the spirit of debate should see you acknowledge it as such. For such a claim, it’s not enough that it’s a comment piece.

    “To be able to claim what fundamental equal rights should look like to repressed communities and where their voices should be heard, by a writer identifying as a cisgender white male is beyond unacceptable.”

    Surely here you mean “To claim… is beyond unacceptable.” rather than, as you have written, “To be able to claim… is beyond unacceptable.” Surely you wouldn’t argue that he should be unable to make his claim, whatever you perceive it to be? That would be too easy a target for the alleged free speech activists of the right who assert their rights to say as they please as a mechanism for the spread of prejudice, wouldn’t it? Also, have you guys marked yourselves as sufficiently “repressed” as “To be able to claim what fundamental equal rights should look like…”? That’s a weird thing to do. Would I let you make decisions about my fundamental rights after reading the first two paragraphs of this article? No, I most certainly would not.

    Are you certain of how Max identifies? Have you weaponised this personal knowledge of him by utilising it against him in your rebuttal? Would you stand for that if he were gay, for example? Are you abusing him by examining his alleged social identity publicly? Have you deprived him of safe space protection because of what he looks like or on the assumption of the gender of his sexual partners?

    If your piece is a response, then why is it published under the title “debate” with direct quotations from his writing and at the same time as Max’s original piece? Did Max have a chance to read your “response” before publishing?

    And oh my goodness, excuse me, but I feel the need to articulate my surprise! I’m writing this as I read it you see… Heaven knows what’s waiting at the end, we’re only in the third paragraph!

    “how the writer continues to view our communities from almost a colonial lens as being “exotic” and “oriental.”

    Who on earth said anything about colonialism!? Why have you presumed the use of such offensive words as “exotic” and “oriental”!? Is there information to which I do not have access here? Has Max – whoever Max is – been documented sweeping around campus, painfully complementing BME students on their exoticism? So far, in either of the articles, you two are the only people who’ve made allusions to either!?

    Max disagrees with you over whether writers from traditionally underrepresented groups should have their own section or just enjoy free publication alongside other writers, which “reflects” that he views other cultures “from an almost colonial lens” using relatively obscene language to describe them!?

    This is a dire problem of logic and I can’t believe it was published. What an impossible jump! You should be really careful! You’re nearing slander! There is no implication that Max views the world *through* an “almost colonial lens” in anything that he’s written (and it is *through*, through a lens by the way, not from a lens) What’s this obsession with lenses anyway? Are you a photographer!? An ophthalmology student? Do you have an unconscious bias in favour of people who wear glasses?!

    Coming from any writer, and unchecked by editors, this is very worrying, but from an editor in chief! Megan, did you read this? What a terrible error! Max’s use of the word “mystical” is probably misplaced, but I very much doubt that he’s referring to the mystical in mysticism, as you seem to have assumed. I rather more imagine he meant to invoke connotations along the lines of the generally unexplained – a loosely articulated jibe at the illusory nature of the requirements for inclusion in the Voices section of the paper, I suspect. This is a perfect incidence where things sour unnecessarily. Instead of misrepresenting Max’s sentiment, you could have said to him – as the editor in chief –

    “Hey Max, I know you probably don’t mean it, but “mystical” might read a bit weirdly to some people, maybe we’re being sensitive, but it might be a bit tactless, maybe trim your language down to something more indicative of “the unexplained” or “arguably arbitrary nature” of the Voices criteria or something. Nice talking to you though, good debate, your hair looks nice today, see you at the next Student event, hope everything’s going well so far this year. Cheers.”.

    “To take advantage and claim this to be a valid argument…” What? Of what? Very poor expression. “…to demolish a safe space, is a privilege that a huge majority of society cannot even imagine having.”

    My oh me! Perhaps I’ve underestimated Max’s understanding of the mystical!? He appears to have acquired the power to “demolish a safe space” on a whim! Further, it seems that the oppressed members of society “cannot even imagine” the experience of privilege or power? Again, be careful with your expression. That’s a little bit infantilising, is it not?

    “Our dialogue as citizens has been segregated into distinct arenas. Arenas set by white, straight, wealthy, able-bodied men that were meant to exclude anybody else. When brown people are searched at airports or structural racism prevents a qualified black person from being chosen for a job, those ‘dubious criteria’ affect them in ways that a white man has the privilege of overlooking.”

    Yeah, maybe, maybe you’re going somewhere useful with this. Could turn into an interesting discussion on racial profiling. It doesn’t, never mind. Aren’t you segregating dialogue within a traditionally white, straight, male hierarchical system at the paper? Isn’t the Voices section directly dependent upon some kind of profiling?

    “Gender, race and sexuality matter to the eyes of the world. Gender, race and sexuality affect people’s lives.”

    You’re so obscenely collectivist that you might as well put the apostrophe after the “s”.

    “Individuals identifying as straight do not have to come out to their families and friends, painstakingly calculating whether losing their loved ones is worth it.”

    You’re losing me again here, we’re gay, we’re in the statistical minority, coming out makes sense if you want to verbally assert your sexuality. The only way coming out would be a marker of prejudice is if all sexualities were present in equal numbers, but there was an unfair assumption of one or other. There is a fair assumption of heterosexuality because there are more heterosexuals. This is not to say that people couldn’t be more sensitive by avoiding any absolute assumption, but I feel you’re being a tad intellectually dishonest again here. Maybe there’s something in it, but you don’t present anything more than very melodramatic, scattered, nonsense statements without any follow up or compelling discussion. It’s hard to see how very much of anything you say relates to your broader point that the Voices initiative is justified.

    “Cisgender people do not have to worry if their doctor will help them transition.”

    Yes, obviously. This more confused non sequitur. I decline to S-P-E-L-L-I-T-O-U-T.

    “And thus, undoubtedly, identity” Wait for it: “affects our relationship to achieve privilege and power”, what? Nonsense. These words do not make sense when put together in this way. “in society; it is not separate from the words that come out of our mouths.”

    You cling to the passive voice for nearly the entire article and then throw in such definitive adverbs as “undoubtedly”. The overall tonal effect is very weak. Like you’re only half-committing. Like you know there’s no content to your article. Like a kid who’s frustrated, but can’t articulate why, left seething and breathless on the naughty step. It’s quite unpleasant to read and it blights your writing. Poor.

    “We cannot separate the art from the artist.” Every time someone listens to Michael Jackson, they successfully separate art from the artist. Do all lovers of Michael Jackson’s music also love paedophiles? They do not. Uh-oh, uh-oh, uh-oh, bash bash, it’s the irony sledgehammer again. Stop hitting yourself. You complain about the general “we” being unable to separate art from the artist while simultaneously arguing that WHO writes the article merits some kind of different treatment in the form of inclusion in the Voices section. Like watching a snake eat its own tail, I’m uncomfortable, but I can’t look away.

    “We don’t buy Les Femmes d’Alger, we buy a Picasso.”
    Indeed, it is the case with all art which has been ravaged and commercialised. The market dictates that collectors care who painted, not what was painted. You nearly said something important here, but then you didn’t. An interesting discussion on the subject might be had about how 25, 000 people now collectively own an original Picasso, 40, 000 shares at around $50 a pop. Interesting consequences for art, feminism, capitalism!

    “At least the wealthy white men who created dubious criteria, putting themselves ahead of everybody else, can buy the Picassos.”

    The tone of your article is all wrong. What is this grotesque, unlikeable sarcasm? It comes out of nowhere and it serves no purpose. It’s also unfounded as it takes no account of the fact that the owners of some of the largest and in fact the very most large collection of “Picassos” is and are women.

    Speaking of dubious criteria, you haven’t yet mentioned what specifically qualifies someone for inclusion in the Voices initiative.

    “We are scared.” Oh stop it.

    “We are scared for the lives of trans-women of colour whose life expectancy in the United States is barely between 30 and 35 years. We are scared for the minorities who experienced hate crimes at an increase of 17 per cent in 2017/18 in England and Wales from 2016/17.”

    This is just a paragraph by itself, what does it have to do with the Voices initiative at The Student newspaper? This is a grave statistic that must be understood and rectified with as much support and love as possible, but you do it an injustice by leaving it hanging here as a throwaway. You make it seem less important than it is by shoehorning it in without adequate justification.

    “Looking into any lecture hall at the University of Edinburgh, it appears that some voices are more important than others.”

    What does this mean? Quantify this. Be specific.

    “In 2016/17 just a mere proportion of 7.9 to 10 per cent of students identified as BME and 11 per cent disclosed a disability.”

    What percentage is your goal? What is the point of this data? Are we to expect more people to become disabled or BME? Will we feel better when more people are disabled or BME? What is going on? What do you mean by this? Are we going to forcibly equalise proportions of race across the globe by relocating everyone? Are white students underrepresented in countries where there they are the ethnic minority? Does this qualify them for an automatic platform? Are white, male, straight students always going to be forced to the bottom of the hierarchy as a penalty for the morality of people who died centuries before them? How long does the alleged inversion have to last before we can call it quits and treat everyone the same? Who decides when things have become sufficiently equalised as to stop the Voices section? Who would ever want that moral responsibility? Who could ever be capable of measuring it? What about class? Are BME students at Edinburgh from rich families more underprivileged than poor, white, straight, males who have no support? What about life experiences? What about white, straight men who’ve experienced sexual abuse? Does that make them less bad? Is the British male suicide rate not an indicator that the oppressors are suffering under the current system and that they too need a way out of what might be mostly unconscious tyranny? Are we allowed to ask these questions? What are you saying? What is your point about any of this?

    “We desperately need to hear those voices and this is why they need to be elevated and be given a safe space. Pretending as though everyone is equal while being aware of the reality is not the way to equality.”

    My only real observation here is that your own elevation of The Student newspaper to something of actual importance is laughable and conceited. Reading this, I desperately hope that those involved in the Voices initiative realise that it’s a crumbled, nonsense institution and break off to form something way more radical, interesting and with better writing. Does anyone even need a leg-up into The Student newspaper? Aren’t you always desperately gasping for content? (The answer is yes for anyone who has no experience of The Student newspaper.)

    “This is a way of denying minorities the words to express their existence and expecting them to silently assimilate into a prejudiced structure.”

    You haven’t shown with any conviction or conclusiveness that the Voices initiative isn’t precisely that which you have described above. How is it any different? It’s a method of assimilation into a traditionally white, straight, male, hierarchical structure, the silence of the minorities and lack of objection to the running of the paper secured by the creation of a safe space. This is the definition of infantalisation.

    “The foremost step to solving the problem is identifying and acknowledging the harms that have been done from a panoramic perspective.”

    Again, I lose you in your language. I know what a panoramic perspective looks like, but I don’t exactly know what you mean when you say that something could be “done from a panoramic perspective”. What are all these allusions to photography and camera apparatus? Do you know you are doing this?

    “And we do, as The Student, acknowledge that we are a heavily white, straight society. We have prejudices we want to become conscious of.”

    Ending a sentence with a preposition, ewwwww. Maybe that’s a bit harsh, people are kind of doing that now. How do you know that you have prejudices of which you wish to become aware if you’re also unconscious of them? Is this a rigorously documented phenomenon among desperately inclusive student populations? Do they often suddenly become aware of whole networks of hidden prejudices that they have been unconsciously enjoying until someone with a nobler mind illuminates their consciousness, raising it to a level higher than attainable by proactive conversation, personal engagement, situational analysis and common sense with members of minority groups and where minority groups are involved?

    “We will not pretend that we came out of the womb woke, blessed with a clear understanding of what every minority experiences.”

    Thank goodness for that.

    The gross irony here is the degree of conservatism revealed in your article and served up with such pugnacious piety! It’s difficult to read! You don’t even understand how conservative you are. That’s what so awful about it. It’s aggressively pious without saying anything of any value. Even this statement of boastful, humility reads as being totally disingenuous. It is awful. You have spotted social injustices. This is good. Your conclusions act in the opposing direction of your ideals. You’re reverting to personal attacks about Max’s social identity to defend others from the same thing, with no idea of his personal history. You’ve created a section of the paper to be exclusive rather than inclusive which makes it inherently undervalued, patronising to minority students and confusing for anyone considered insufficiently representative of a minority group. Why are we not aiming for a respectful, historically aware, post-racial paper? Why are we not confronting racists by telling them that the category of race might even be considered illegitimate, given that there’s greater genetic diversity within some races than between them? What happened to gender and gender behaviour being a vast spectrum? Why are we not welcoming straight, white guys and suggesting that they try sticking a finger up their butts within their heterosex? You have built a wall. AND it’s impossible to really know what side of the wall anyone is on without asking them what race they identify as or what sexual positions they enjoy and with whom!? It’s almost authoritarian, for everyone involved. Are you going to leap across a table and accost me for my white, straight, male privilege only to discover that I’m intersex? Are you going to make me take my pants off to prove it? How can anyone think that any of this stuff is going to work? You’re becoming tyrannical, like everything you oppose and you also have to answer to the personal and journalistic crime of being completely boring to boot.

    “The structure of our society might be what’s barring minority voices from participating, but we are working to solve that.”

    You might be right! Is a solution that upholds and maintains that original structure so readily really viable? You haven’t given any indication of this. If the Voices initiative segregates people along the lines of their social identity for its inclusion criteria, then it’s only fuelling the injustices that oppressed members of society suffer. It is a nepenthe. It does not address the problem. Are minority individuals happier when given a space instead of taking a space? Your article should have drawn a conclusion about the fundamental justification of safe spaces. And there may be a fundamental justification to be told! The question which remains woefully unanswered is: Are safe spaces an example of successful inclusivity or are they just totally infantilising and discriminatory to minority in concept and majority groups in practice?

    “These voices are so structurally under siege that they need an arena of their own; a safe space that will instil a sense of comfort and inclusion, make the privileged aware of the kind of daily trauma they do not have to face. We are not here to decide if someone is unequal enough to get their own section. We, in our minimal efforts, are attempting to make a space for those who haven’t gotten enough space everywhere else.”

    Very bad phrasing and unswallowably humble-bumble. Yes, these are made-up words, but who cares at this point.

    “ ‘Voices,’ as an initiative, it is not the end-solution. We still observe patterns of inequality in all realms within our society on a regular basis.”

    Everything about this whole conception is totally conservative. Everything apart from the really nebulous bits from which absolutely no meaning can be extracted. As evidenced by this near hysterical article, students participating in The Student newspaper society do not need any more protection than the current climate of self-castrating, paranoid, viciously conservative, piety exhibited here in this article.

    “We have not solved racism.”

    No, you have not.

    “We do, however, try to be conscious of the biases” (plural) “within the society and address it.”, (singular).

    “A long time ago, wealthy white cisgender men treaded on an unforgivable path where they decided that it was their voices and opinions that were more worthy than others. The Student’s initiative is not the beginning of the divide”

    You have started an initiative on the basis of division by social identity.

    “and we certainly will not be the end,”

    No.

    “but we also will not stand by idly and watch it happen.”…

    After all, you can’t strangle someone while you’re choking on your humble pie.

    Sorry, that bit at the end was me again.

    The Student must take extreme care not to congratulate itself too readily for managing to fill its pages every two weeks. Take it down to once a month and spent some time really reading and writing your articles properly! Stop writing what you think you’re supposed to write and write what you actually think. Let people tell you that they think you’re wrong. It’s exciting! This kind of weird, intense, pious, but vapid leftist screaming into the abyss is exactly what perpetuates the worst of the right. I’m further left than everyone at the paper that I know, and I can hardly process my despair at how unfocused and confused the sentiment of this article is. This could have been an extremely interesting discussion on the philosophical, logical justification of the nature of safe spaces, which is a genuinely interesting question. I have no idea who Max is, he might be a good guy or he might be a wee leech, but he definitely got closer to the subject and less personal than the allegedly sympathetic lefties whether you agree with him or not. I am a liberationist and do not believe that the way to improve society is to forget the past entirely nor to cement it into our institutions by safe space policy, but to dare to love each other fiercely, acknowledging the weirdness of our differences and injustices with intense respect, lust, good listening, empathy, some safe sexual experimentation, counterintuitive conversation and support when genuinely required. Dare to hurt and be hurt, but to love and respect and be interested too. Anyone seeking to deliver someone from oppression into liberation is making a mistake. Liberation is organic, you are contrived. Beware anyone speaking on behalf of anyone else, it’s always riddled with falsehood and contradictions. Beware humility, it’s usually a sign of absolute vanity. You guys are clearly passionate about something and more segregation is the best idea you could come up with? WOW. Love minorities hard, stand up for them, but only when they need it and let them do the rest themselves, you idiots. It’s called agency. Who am I to call anyone an idiot? I just spent three hours writing this when I could have been doing something interesting. I haven’t even come to a necessarily definitive conclusion that safe spaces are good or bad.

    As evidenced by the shocking execution of this article, it’s hilarious to think that anyone would ever struggle to be published in The Student anyway so y’know, what’s your point?

    For the record, I truly detest contributing to this utter tedium and resisted this garbled diatribe as far as I could, which is why it’s written as such an obviously frenzied stream of consciousness, but I’m watching you defeat yourselves with confounding proficiency and it’s just so embarrassing for me as a feminist and as someone who aligns strongly with the left across many important areas. Just stop it. Think about what you’re saying. Say something with content. Say anything.

    P.s. There are so many more terrible articles, try reading “The Frustrating Misuse of the Word Anxiety” where the writer misuses the word anxiety consistently for the entire duration of her article, along with sickeningly studenty references as if she’s feverishly worried that we’re all going to forget that it’s being published in a student newspaper (don’t worry, not any time soon), more terrible writing and totally confused and harmful logic attempting to justify her move for a monopoly on the language of suffering and negative emotions. Check out “University shows you just how different the world can be” for (spoiler) an article as vacuous as the title suggests. Seriously, 600 words of absolutely no content and again with this weird, shaming, pious, patronising tone.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Steven McJournalist Cancel reply

The Student Newspaper 2016