SectionsLetter: SAC President: Article misleading, SAC works for all students
Issue date: 11/13/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
This is the article that I have waited two weeks for. After over a month after the event has ended, Mr. Pulliam continues to play up the subject of students being "excluded" from a SAC event. The ghost hunter lecture given by Chris Moon on Oct. 9 continues to be held as an enormous controversy in the eyes of Pulliam.
In both of his articles, Pulliam has distorted or left out important details to the entire story. In his first article, posted Oct. 12, it is presented that Moon was "interrupted by a member of SAC" who explained that the ghost hunt was "only open to SAC members in good standing." Being the president of SAC and the organizer of the event (not just a random member), I answered this question, but only after Moon had asked for clarification from the organization. Pulliam continues to distort the facts when he claims that the audience was "completely out of questions" after this reveal and that our advisor, Tara Benson, "struggled to explain SAC's reasoning" as she "pleaded to her small audience." In actually, the Q&A continued for about 5 to 10 minutes, followed by more individual discussions with students after the lecture. It was during this time when our advisor fielded questions from a "small audience" of about 3 to 5 students. One of the students who was very upset, a man who has been a regular attendee of such events, was yelling at our advisor, prompting her response of "...raising your voice is not the answer." After some further discussion, this man was invited to follow up about his concerns by both Benson and me, an opportunity that he readily accepted with both of us. Mr. Pulliam was informed by me during the interview that prompted his second article that only one student had expressed such a great disappointment and that this man had been followed up with by SAC. In his second article, Pulliam includes a quote from a graduate student that states "Our university system revolves around a dialogue, and the SAC activities prove that their communication is just a monologue." However, this student was not a member of the "small audience" that talked to Benson, nor has this student taken the time to follow up with SAC about their concerns. In fact, if anyone is guilty of one way communication, it is the student who chose only to express their dissatisfaction to Pulliam, rather than seek to confront it with our organization. Another distortion brought about by Pulliam is how he chooses to exclude how students can get involved in SAC. Although what he states is true, he left out the parts where I explain students are given automatic voting rights at the first 3 meetings of each semester and that any student is still welcome to attend meetings and voice their opinions regardless of their voting status.
In both of his articles, Pulliam has distorted or left out important details to the entire story. In his first article, posted Oct. 12, it is presented that Moon was "interrupted by a member of SAC" who explained that the ghost hunt was "only open to SAC members in good standing." Being the president of SAC and the organizer of the event (not just a random member), I answered this question, but only after Moon had asked for clarification from the organization. Pulliam continues to distort the facts when he claims that the audience was "completely out of questions" after this reveal and that our advisor, Tara Benson, "struggled to explain SAC's reasoning" as she "pleaded to her small audience." In actually, the Q&A continued for about 5 to 10 minutes, followed by more individual discussions with students after the lecture. It was during this time when our advisor fielded questions from a "small audience" of about 3 to 5 students. One of the students who was very upset, a man who has been a regular attendee of such events, was yelling at our advisor, prompting her response of "...raising your voice is not the answer." After some further discussion, this man was invited to follow up about his concerns by both Benson and me, an opportunity that he readily accepted with both of us. Mr. Pulliam was informed by me during the interview that prompted his second article that only one student had expressed such a great disappointment and that this man had been followed up with by SAC. In his second article, Pulliam includes a quote from a graduate student that states "Our university system revolves around a dialogue, and the SAC activities prove that their communication is just a monologue." However, this student was not a member of the "small audience" that talked to Benson, nor has this student taken the time to follow up with SAC about their concerns. In fact, if anyone is guilty of one way communication, it is the student who chose only to express their dissatisfaction to Pulliam, rather than seek to confront it with our organization. Another distortion brought about by Pulliam is how he chooses to exclude how students can get involved in SAC. Although what he states is true, he left out the parts where I explain students are given automatic voting rights at the first 3 meetings of each semester and that any student is still welcome to attend meetings and voice their opinions regardless of their voting status.
Be the first to comment on this story