To the Editor:

While it seems improper for a Stern College student to complain about an SCW paper in a Yeshiva College publication, I have chosen to make an exception for a significant reason. The Observer chose to respond to a letter to the editor sent by a number of student leaders, in a misleading manner. I did not want to grant them this opportunity in responding to the following letter. Hence, I turn to The Commentator.

I feel as if I am wasting my time reading the complaints of an exhausted editor who chooses to whine that the "Sentiment expressed by the male [Yeshiva College] students bothered me, as it reflected a lack of university unity and sometimes indifferent attitudes towards Stern that I have noticed since I came to Yeshiva, and in particular to the Observer." What can one expect? Yeshiva College and Stern College are different. They are 150 blocks apart. Yeshiva College is bigger, with a swimming pool, and a campus. Stern College is located in the heart of Manhattan, and surrounded by museums, the theatre district, restaurants and culture. Beyond these logistical factors, the compositions of the student bodies of both colleges are radically different. Yeshiva College and Stern College have separately-run student councils, clubs, societies, as well as publications. This last fact is central to my point.

The Commentator is more factual than The Observer. It is not successful in imparting facts because it is well written, well funded, or well researched. While these are all factors, the confidence The Commentator has in itself prevails over the other dynamics. The Commentator expends effort in gathering information and realizes that one person's opinion is an editorial, not an article. The Observer chooses not to be objective and continually relies on an inadequate amount of information. Until any sign of objectivity is apparent within your newspaper, stop complaining about being 'bashed' by a group of students who report facts to their readers.

One opportunity in which The Commentator shined was in their coverage of the unfortunate dark period of September 11th. Instead of reporting the facts, The Observer chose to dedicate a sizable portion of their special edition (September 12th) to the student leaders who were deemed "unfeasible…undesirable." [Although this quote may be found in the October 16, 2001 edition, this is a repetition of the content printed in The Observer's Special Edition covering September 11th.] Would not the editors of the school newspaper be considered student leaders? Where does this statement leave The Observer editors? In a time of crisis when students needed to feel uplifted, The Observer chose to vent its frustrations about their not being taken seriously. Perhaps this so-called special edition of The Observer is a prime example of one of the many reasons it fails to be taken seriously. I request that you respect your readers. Understand that the students of Stern College for Women are intelligent individuals who can recognize a biased newspaper that covers only half the story. I have idly sat by while The Observer time and time again criticized situations that are both deserving and undeserving of criticism. You must learn to make a distinction between the two in the future. You may accomplish this necessity by communicating with the student leaders of which you find "undesirable." Had any contact been attempted, student leaders might have had a chance to respond and shed light onto a number of circumstances that were unbeknownst to you. In addition, there are many venues that must be utilized for complete coverage. This includes security, administration, student services etc. I should not have to list these resources; you should have done that in your paper that is read by those you insult. Perhaps you will find that an article may be written on a more positive note. Better yet, it may be truthful. Who knows, you may pick up a reader or two.

Sincerely,
Sharon Weiss
SCWSC Vice President '02