Tags
Mr Sash wrote a letter entitled “Fee requests need to be well-scrutinized by all” in which he claims that Zach Dexter and I, Anthony E. Dent, who happen to both write for Carolina Review, are corrupt and dishonest because we also sit on the Finance Committee which hears funding requests. Student Congress recently passed a bill appropriating money to Carolina Review, and Mr Shah believes it is the fact that both Mr Dexter and I sit on the Finance Committee is “salient.”
This also apparently, in his words, “raise[s] legitimate concerns about the way in which funding requests are handled within the finance committee.”
Clearly, Shah implies, this presents a conflict of interest and Mr Dexter and I are guilty of illegitimately directing funds to groups of which we are members. That conflict of interest is “salient.”
His commentary would merely be absurd if it weren’t impugning our integrity and his accusations completely unfounded.
The facts: yes, Mr Dexter and I are members of Carolina Review and sit on the Finance Committee of which Mr Dexter is the chair. However, neither I nor Mr Dexter introduced the bill in committee or in Student Congress or voted upon any amendments or motions pertaining to the funding request, and we, in addition to Justin Crowder and Duke Cheston in full congress, abstained from voting upon the matter when the question was called.
Unless it is the stated policy of the Daily Tar Heel to publish untruths, they should have done more research before printing a letter chock full of assertions with no evidence to back them up. I am disappointed that Mr Dunn would allow such a letter impugning someone’s honor to be printed upon such baseless accusations.
"Shah".
Dent,
Yash doesn't "claim" anywhere in his letter that you or Dexter are "corrupt" or "dishonest." Maybe he implies it, but he certainly doesn't "claim" it.
I, on the other hand, will go ahead and claim right here that you are illiterate. Apparently you were not capable of reading the following sentence in his letter: "I will be the first to say that this is absolutely by no means evidence of misuse of funds." That's the first sentence of the third paragraph, in case you need a friend to go back and read it out loud for you.
He does claim that the issue is "salient," but nowhere does he use the phrase "conflict of interest." "Salient," as you might not know because you can't quite seem to read, means that something is prominent, relevant or worthy of note. It doesn't imply anything nefarious, so you're jumping the gun a bit. And he's right: the face value of the facts that he presented are extremely salient.
Finally, the main thrust of his argument seems to be that on a campus where conservatives are such a minority, it doesn't really make sense in times of extreme budget crisis to give so much money to a publication read by so few people. Now everyone knows I read the Review religiously, and would hate for it to go out of print, but I think Yash has a point. Maybe its time for you privatization fiends at CR to privatize yourselves. You don't like raising student fees to pay for subsidized student activities? Well then fine, do the honest conservative thing and stop asking for the subsidization of CR. But you wouldn't do that, would you? Because you all know you probably wouldn't raise the kind of private funds needed to put out your glossy paper. (Really, y'all do have a high production quality.)
If you, Dexter and Crowder abstained from voting on the funding issue, then I applaud you. That's the way a virtuous democracy works. But virtuous democracies need another thing too: debating citizens need to learn each other's names. You see, there is no letter to the DTH from anyone named Yash Sash. I understand that in your zeal for a catchy title, you misread the poor bloke's name (or, again, you were incapable of reading it), and just came up with something that rhymed. But please, if you're not actually going to read his letter properly, at least do him the honor of reading his name. That would be, of course, Yash Shah.
What Yash really meant was "I don't have any evidence of wrongdoing, but I'm going to insinuate it anyways."
"Finally, the main thrust of his argument seems to be that on a campus where conservatives are such a minority, it doesn't really make sense in times of extreme budget crisis to give so much money to a publication read by so few people."
Considering that we move several thousand issues off of newsstands each month, I wonder who these "so few people" that everyone likes to talk about are.
"Because you all know you probably wouldn't raise the kind of private funds needed to put out your glossy paper. (Really, y'all do have a high production quality.)"
Our glossy paper costs no more than our previous flat paper from what I understand. We just found a different printer who gave us a better deal.
Come on man, Yash's letter is not about funding propriety, it's just a transparent attempt to try and shut down political speech that he doesn't agree with.
"Yash's letter is not about funding propriety, it's just a transparent attempt to try and shut down political speech that he doesn't agree with."
I disagree wholeheartedly. I think we can, and should, have a discussion about how much money CR receives, and about how and why so many people connected to it are involved in the process of official recognition and funding, without starting from the position that it's a bad thing and should be starved of funds or shut down. Questioning the proportionality of funding and recognition is not the same thing as question the legitimacy of existence. You guys are being too insensitive to that distinction, though I understand that you have some legitimate reasons for that.
As for your ability to move issues off the stand, it doesn't matter how many you move. It matters what percent of your print run you move. And y'all always have plenty of left overs, as anyone can see anywhere the go, with the occasional exception of Joyner.
Blue & White received more money than CR. Do you know anything about the appropriations process? Does Blue & White add more benefit to this campus than CR? Really? Wth?! And how is the fact that two CR members sit on the finance committee more suspicious than the fact that 5 YDs also sit on the committee? Is the new Pattishall rule going to be that no group who has members on the Finance Committee or that are in congress shall receive money? You're stupid.
Pattishall: calm the crap down.
On second thought, I apologize for calling you illiterate. I can easily see how the letter implies a suspicion, or at least the suspicion of an opportunity, of wrong doing. And while I don't think you've taken Shah at his word that he sees "no evidence of the misuse of funds," I can understand how the members of a political minority used to harassment might construe it as an indirect accusation of corruption. All the same, the implications of the letter are not as clear as you think they are. His point is really a pretty mild one in the end, though it might look strong and nasty: It looks suspicious that two CR writers sit on the finance committee, and it's equally suspicious that a publication that benefits so few people gets so much money. He admits that it is not proof of anything. Just a suspicion. This is the legitimate concern of a large number of people who read the Carolina Review, and has been expressed to me plenty of times. (In which case I normally find myself in the politically awkward position of sticking up for the Review. Who knew a Marxist could be a process liberal? [Hint: I did.])
But regardless of the implications of the letter, you have chosen your words poorly by describing them as "accusations" and "claims." (It really makes it look like you just skimmed his letter and ignored all its nuances.) Just as I chose my words poorly by calling you illiterate. Political bloviation can get the best of all of us sometimes.
As for CR getting money from Student Congress, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with CR getting money out of all proportion to its importance, impact and value on campus. Have you guys ever stopped to look at the number of unread issues of CR in the stands at the end of each month? Maybe a press run of a few hundred less would be a wise cost-cutting measure for the advocates of fiscal responsibility.
Again, my apologies.
Justin: Crap, really? Wait until I start acting like the second coming of Glenn Beck to call what I say crap.
Just kidding. Excited about D'Souza's visit? I know I am. Just got my tickets today. I'm sure I will see you, and probably every one else I've ever insulted and been insulted by at this publication, there.
You are acting out of character. But, I am excited about the D'Souza visit — didn't know you could get tickets yet (not supposed to pay for them btw). I am very, very excited about Jonah Goldberg though. Also, I don't think I have ever insulted you unless you consider frankness insulting.
UPDATE: I am no longer a member of Student Congress. I quit several days ago.
why Duke, WHYYYYYyyy?!