“DU has made ripples in the world of higher education by increasing the amount of copper and tuition on campus, but its sought after flood of revenue, appearance and perjury will only squirt other educational institutions once we’re long gone.”
Mr. Lamz,
Please read the preceding sentence. You published this in the most recent edition of the Clarion on page 7 under the heading “Chasing Collegiate Authenticity Illusions.” This sentence reads like a Mad Lib. Never in my experience with the English language have I seen the word “squirt” used as an active verb for the direct object “educational institutions.” It makes me wonder if the Clarion has any sort of editing staff whatsoever. While a reasoned analysis of where tuition money is spent on campus could be a valuable article for your paper, I am not even sure if this is the intention of the article. I am not sure what the intention of the article is. Furthermore, this saying nothing about my views on legalization of marijuana, the fact that Kyle Connolly got “high” is completely irrelevant to any discussion of the academic quality of this university. The fact that this article was written by someone attending an accredited university astounds me. If someone had told me this article was written by a first grader I would have been shocked by its sophomoric and rambling musings, incomprehensible grammar and pretentious declarations such as, “our finest profiteer and most prized affiliate,” which are as incoherent as they are insulting to the intelligence of every student at this university. I have to say that your paper has a reputation on campus for lack of quality and it is articles like this that make this the case. It has gotten to the point where the only purpose your publication serves is to pad the resumes of your staff members. It is up to you as editor-in-chief to improve.
Sincerely,
Brandon Reich-Sweet
Cory Lamz responds: To argue over the use of “squirt” in this context is small potatoes. I’m here to tell you, however, that the Clarion does have an editing staff – and a very strong one at that. While we encourage letters to the editor, we also welcome regular content to be published in the Opinions section of the newspaper. These op-ed pieces are then changed stylistically and grammatically to better match that of the overall newspaper if necessary, while the content itself is discussed by our staff and addressed if controversial. Kyle Connolly’s piece last week, in volume 118, issue 12 of the Clarion, is one example of such debate. Thank you for providing your feedback. If you would like to submit your own op-ed pieces for consideration for the Clarion, you are welcomed to do so.
