They [sic] hypocrisy of this institution is beyond nauseating and this piece is just another example of a lame-duck editorial beating around the bush on an issue while another recent staff-ed took a very vocal position on homophobia when it suited their liberal, anti-commerce agenda. [See screenshot]
The above quote is a verbatim reproduction of a comment made by Richard Jesse Market at 10PM on September 13, 2010 in response to a fence-sitting staff editorial entitled “Donate Blood and Fight Homophobia,” which ran in that day’s issue of Student Life, the ever-declining rag which is the Washington University campus newspaper. Written not long after I had criticized the paper over their decision to remain silent about the staggering hypocrisy of the university in first ending its cooperation with Target in response to their indirect aid of a homophobic politician, and then running a massive blood drive from which homosexuals are prohibited, this editorial was intended to encourage students to have their cake and eat it too, and to avoid admitting that the self-satisfaction so many members of our community enjoy is undeserved.
If you clicked through to read the staff editorial, you may have noticed that Mr. Markel’s comment is absent from the page. And why exactly is that? Well, it is the result of the continued degeneration of journalistic standards and the notion of editorial independence under Kate Gaertner.
Where first she made a name for herself in censoring conservative submissions from long time columnists, she soon moved on to hiring new writers based exclusively on their political positions. Dissent was never something she tolerated, hence her eventual decision to close down the Editorial Board to non-editors (a position she has since switched again, now requiring new editorial writers to attend). But now it seems her loathing of an alternative opinion has reached such profound heights that she has banned all members of the Editorial Board from openly disagreeing with the staff editorial. Never mind that it is a consensus view and not something which all members must sign off on. Here, it must be pointed out that Richard Markel is as close to a conservative member of the editorial board as can be found, and thus is always shouted down. So, in effect, this policy exists to curtail the critical speech of a single member, based entirely on the grounds that it would look “unprofessional” for an editor to break with his publication. It is worth mentioning that such policies never existed under previous management, and this decision was made by Kate Gaertner herself.
It is at this point where I must mention that Mr. Markel did not merely have his comment deleted, but was explicitly threatened. He was told to fall in line, or to resign. This speaks to Kate’s seeming goal of chasing every last non-liberal off of the paper’s staff. First, I resigned in August of 2009, after having spent but a few weeks under her as Senior Forum Editor, based on her willingness to censor columns she disagreed with and her infusion of political bias into ever aspect of her management. Later, with Kate’s promotion to Editor-in-Chief and the end of the academic year, the generally moderate-toned libertarian who joined at the same time I did, Phil Christofanelli, resigned as well. He attributes his decision largely to the displeasure he felt writing for Kate, who he acknowledges put personal politics above editorial freedom.
This alienating pattern of mismanagement has had some severe consequences. When I wrote for Student Life there were so many forum contributors that there was talk of having each writer submit a piece every third week. Now however, they are currently “desperate for writers,” according to one inside source. And it shows in the many issues where they struggle to fill even a single side of a page with editorial content. Alarmingly, they would have even less if Kate Gaertner had her way, as it is only through the intervention of Senior Forum Editor AJ Sundar that a handful of right-leaning editorials have been published from Mr. Markel, who even as a voter for Barak Obama is apparently too conservative for the Editor-in-Chief’s tastes. What little content they do run from other writers tends to be shamefully bad, with pieces either being little more than stream of consciousness drivel, or burying the lead so deeply as to leave the reader wondering if the article ever underwent even the most modest revisions.
Particularly striking was “Constitutionally Correct?” by Sophie Adelman, which after deftly managing not to express any opinion for the first two thirds of her mercifully short article, ends with what amounts to a condemnation of free speech rights protecting Fred Phelps. Mr. Markel, outraged by her position, sought to write a response defending the importance of extending free speech even to the most reviled bigots. After turning in said article, he was confronted by other members of the paper staff indicating that his column would not be run as submitted. Various points made by those party to the discussion, such as a refusal to include language that made it a direct response rather than an alternative view of the same issue, were at least understandable even if not correct. Others however, are a different story, which you’ll soon discover yourself.
As it happens, within the Student Life office, various staff members tend to congregate. And, since that can make for some excellent drama, occasionally some of those not party to the argument of the moment will secretly record the conversation and share it with others for amusement. That happened the very same day Mr. Markel was arguing to have his article run, and I have since been given a copy of the argument.
In the conversation, he is told that the word “fag” cannot appear in his article, even in the context of quoting Phelps and the signs he protests with. The idea of running a censored version of that word was met with nearly as much hesitance. Moreover, discussion of how Mr. Markel has been making too many waves and would be advised to watch out can also be found, though this is stated somewhat less bluntly. Embedded below via Youtube is the audio file, which I have edited only to remove information which might identify my source, and to try and improve sound quality. I have cut off the start and end points as necessary, but the middle portion remains unedited, so that you too can judge how they handle such matters.
Lastly, though I have already spoken a great deal about censorship as directed by Kate Gaertner at Student Life and its negative ramifications, I must share one last thought. The September 22nd staff editorial, of which Kate was a strong proponent, is focused on condemning a peer institution’s newspaper for its failure to censor columnists. Now, while I’ll readily admit that the Johns Hopkins editorials condemned by Student Life don’t reflect especially well upon the paper that ran them, the very last thing a newspaper should go out of its way to advocate is increased editorial censorship. The fact then that the current staff is so enthused by it as to no longer simply practice it covertly, but to champion it in print, says all that is needed to confirm that Student Life is a damn disgrace of a newspaper.
Please note that the information included above has been culled from a variety of sources, ranging from my own interactions with various staff members, to tips given by a large number of past and present Student Life staff members. That Richard Markel is the protagonist of this particular entry on Kate Gaertner’s Student Life speaks only to the fact that he remains among the brave few willing to stand his ground in some capacity. His opinion was not solicited at any time before, during, or after the composition and editing of this piece. All sources that have asked not to be named will remain anonymous.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
When you consider that our campus paper runs three editions each week, features breaking news updates online between editions, and has put out some wonderful special editions centered around events like the Vice Presidential Debate, we’re quite lucky. Or at least we were. Even as recently as March 2009, Student Life was a publication that had quality standards commensurate with our peer institutions, displayed respect for core journalistic values, and fostered a free and open culture that made involvement both simple and pleasurable. But, with the staff change that took place in April 2009, none of this can be said anymore with a straight face. There has been a noticeable decline in quality, a reckless disregard for journalistic standards and values, and a regression to secrecy and power politics.
Though I do not want to paint too rosy a picture about the operations and content of Student Life prior to this staffing change (such as the horrid coverage of Dr. Daniel Pipes), as somebody who has worked at other student papers and for a range of more professional sources too, I feel able to say that on the whole, the previous standards of operation were generally commendable, and the results often praiseworthy.
First and foremost among what made Student Life function as a credible vehicle that was more newspaper than sub-tabloidal misallocation of paper (as is presently the case) was that, rather than choosing governing sentiments as fit the agenda of those in charge, they upheld journalistic standards, chief among them free speech. It is understood that, especially as it pertains to editorial columns, the writer is given sufficient discretion to not only choose their topic, but write about it in a tone and with a slant of their own choosing. For their part, the editor is generally expected only to make alterations to grammar and syntax, and if need be, removing statements that qualify as libel. And that was the position taken by my editor, and insofar as I am aware all others, up until the staff shift. Not a single article I wrote between September of 2008 and April of 2009 was censored, including an article where I advocated applying an obscure Israeli law that would make the vast majority of its government eligible for life imprisonment and another article decrying Gandhi and the undue popularity he continues to enjoy postmortem. The new staff however, was quick to abandon this standard. Or rather, Kate Gaertner was. Being the new Senior Forum Editor, she has the ability to override the decision of the daily editors. And, at least in my experience, said group was not actively inclined to follow Gaertner’s reckless lead. Rather, they were just a bit too green behind the ears to challenge her abuse of authority, meaning that from day one, she could censor articles whose viewpoint she disagreed with, altering the tone, or making changes that made the article less coherent (as happened with my Fujimori article), thereby making the author seem less competent.
I was greatly concerned when, within a week or so of assuming power, she overrode the daily editor and made drastic changes to an article about the Federal Reserve written by fellow CLA member Phil Christofanelli. While some of her changes were legitimately necessary to enhance the readability of his column, having seen both the original version submitted and that which ultimately ran, I can say with confidence that she grossly distorted Christofanelli’s position, and left out crucial details that supported or qualified his position, and which were contextually critical. Alas, this was not the last example of her flagrant disregard for the opinions of the few non-liberals who had opted to lend the paper credence by letting it cite us as examples of a balance that never truly existed. The very next week, my article about the famed Peruvian politician Alberto Fujimori was savagely butchered.
Length was obviously not the issue, for it was among the shortest columns I turned in last year, and was nearly three hundred words shorter than the column I’d run the previous week about US-Israel relations. Indeed, the version she decided to run without my consent was a mere 19 words more brief. The real changes she made were not to length, but message. My article was unabashedly supportive of Fujimori, who many conservatives hold as hero based on the stellar results he generated while in power, especially as compared to the job done by those who preceded and succeeded him. In her mind however, that was unacceptable. After the column ran, I met with her to discuss my profound anger over the rape of my column. Her justification was that because I was the only Student Life columnist whose focus was on international affairs, she felt the need to moderate my tone, given that I had no left-wing counterpart. Never mind that with the arguable exception of Christofanelli, who covered various domestic policy issues every other week from a qualified libertarian position, every other writer for the section had a pronounced left-wing orientation. Yet at no time did she ever feel that balance was needed there. After all, the views of said columnists aligned generally with her own, so she felt no need to restrict their speech. In that particular exchange her seeming fetish for censoring conservatives was re-iterated throughout, as she issued various proposals that involved cutting, marginalizing, or balancing my column and no others. We ended with me making rather clear that should my column ever again be censored, I would cease to write for Student Life, as I now have.
Censorship though is not limited to those writing, as such policies just as readily apply to those wishing to join the staff. One individual wishing to write for Forum sent Gaertner an email detailing their desire to write for her section. She did not ask for a writing sample or details of the writer’s credentials. She did however make certain to confirm that their political position was one consistent with her own. She stated, in reference obviously to me, that the paper already had a writer who is “very neo-conservative in his stance [ed - this is grossly inaccurate], very pro-Israel” and that she was not looking to hire another such writer in the name of the “balance,” which consisted of me on the right, and most of the rest of the staff on the far left. It wasn’t until she was sufficiently ensured she wouldn’t be adding another conservative to the staff that she granted the applicant a column.
Of course, once granted a column, even if a Forum writer is not subject to censorship as a result of their ideological sympathies, it all but certain they will suffer from the ill-effects of mismanagement and/or power politics. For instance, it was not until shortly after I attempted to submit my Srebrencia column (now run elsewhere) during the first week of class this academic year that a clear word limit was ever stated, being set at a meager 700 (which, in turn, has caused a decline in quality perhaps moreso than any other singular action since the staffing change). Problem was, what your limit was would vary depending which editor you asked, and who you were. Under the old regime, if there was a word limit, it was perhaps a soft 1000, and I ran at least four articles that were between 800 and 1000 words without so much as a suggestion that I consider writing shorter submissions. Under the new regime, the limit is a hard 700. But, and here’s the catch, it applies selectively. I had run multiple columns longer than that in the short reign of the new governing regime. And indeed, I was told by my editor that the submitted article would run, but that in the future, I should keep articles under 800 words. A friend of mine writing for Forum was told to keep his columns under 550 words by a different editor. Presumably these were not arbitrary decisions, but rather the result of mismanagement by Gaertner, as applied to her subordinates.
I am especially inclined to believe the fault lies exclusively with Gaertner based on her inability to relay simple information to her staff in a timely fashion. After the last minute rejection of my Srebrenica article for being longer than a limit I was never told about, and other issues to be detailed below, I resigned from Student Life on August 30, 2009. From what I have been told, even though the article was in her hands well in advance of that time, she did not bother cutting it until printing day, keeping the Friday Forum Editor in the dark. Likewise, he was not even told of my resignation until the next week, at which time he was tasked with finding a way to fill column inches he had come to expect were already accounted for, being that I had a weekly column.
Still, it may not merely have been an issue of incompetence and limited communication skills on Gaerner’s part, as her apparent love for instigating petty conflicts in an inexplicable quest to ensure that her authority was never challenged, even though hierarchically she was never in any danger, manifested itself regularly. This is perhaps best evidenced by her fear of openness, and the associated reliance on secrecy, witnessed clearly in her management of the Executive Board. Made up officially of senior staff, its job is to select the topics for the staff editorials, as well as the position that will be taken therein. Whatever the connotations of her name, the staff in charge before her held that such meetings should be open to all Forum writers interested in attending, and that when there, participants were equal in status to those who were official members of it. They recognized that there was no negative consequence to this approach, as only those genuinely interested would attend if not obligated. At the same time, there was tremendous benefit that came with it, including helping to determine who would be offered promotions at the next staff roster adjustment, encouraging interaction between junior and senior staff, fostering an open atmosphere that instilled faith the paper, and allowed for a diversity in opinion to be given voice that might otherwise be sorely lacking. Gaertner however, would have none of this. Though she herself had attended several such meetings before being made an editor, unsure in power based on her underwhelming experience and leadership skills, she sought to keep the meetings closed, limiting them only to the newly appointed editors, all of whom had the same or less experience than her, and were disinclined to challenge her authority. Or rather, she almost did.
Having regularly attended such meetings previously, and moreover having both written a Staff Editorial (about University College access by undergrads) and having introduced a piece of software still widely used by Student Life staff to collaboratively edit articles (Writeboard), I continued to attend the meetings without issue. And at first, there was no apparent problem, for she had not announced a policy switch, and no other non-editor besides me made a point of attending such meetings. One week however, I suggested to a friend of mine that also wrote for Forum that he experience an Executive Board meeting, as they sometimes featured rather interesting debate. He agreed, and we went together to the next such meeting. Shortly after leaving, he received an email from Gartner, wherein she said stated he was not welcome at said meetings in the future. She said, “One thing that I wanted to address with you is that the editorial board meetings are technically open only to senior staff members, and we invite Caleb, as a columnist, to come to our meetings because we feel he helps us to strike the appropriate political balance of opinion that an editorial board for our campus community should reflect.” That she even allowed me to continue attending for the remainder of the academic year was a bit shocking, for her actions detailed earlier in this article make clear she had no true allegiance to balance. But this was to be short lived.
Just before the start of the academic year, and prior to my resignation from the paper, I sent Gaertner an email inquiring as to when and where the Executive Board meetings would be held this year, thinking that it might have changed from last year. In response to my inquiry, she informed me that “the scope of eboard has changed this year, and in keeping with our goals, it will be limited to editors.” Now, insofar as I can tell, that policy was not any different from the preceding year since her assumption of power, with one notable exception. And that is the concern for balance. It seems that over the summer, she lost any interest in even pretending that her section enjoyed any. Not being one to avoid confrontation, I responded to her, stating as much, albeit with a somewhat nicer tone. She of course ignored this, as she often did emails I sent where the answer would invariably require that she either concede something to me, or put her foot in her mouth. While other writers would hear back from her in hours, I would never get a response as soon as the circumstances forced her hand, even if I sent two or three emails on the same topic over the course of a week or two. To do otherwise would require that she be less paranoid about protection authority nobody ever sought to challenge. And that inclination seems absent from her DNA.
Ultimately, I do not believe that the sad state Forum, and to a lesser extent other sections of the paper, currently find themselves in is necessarily a permanent condition. Past leadership has demonstrated that within our student body there are a perfectly sufficient number of capable individuals to run a high quality campus newspaper. But those presently in power, especially Gaertner, have done considerable damage in the present to our paper’s quality and reputation. If, when the next staff re-assignment comes around serious changes are not made, with more qualified individuals being given greater authority, I fear that what is presently just a dark period for the paper will become something more permanent and more destructive. Its longterm viability, if present conditions persist, is questionable. And, even if it were to continue on, in its present capacity that would serve only as a blight on this fine institution.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
See end of the article for updates.
Every week, I write an article for Student Life, the main campus newspaper at Washington University. The overwhelming majority of the staff is quite liberal. There is, as I understand it, one other non-liberal columnist, and his articles tend to be quite a bit less controversial. Last week however, the other non-liberal found that his column had been substantively altered before running, and he had been given no notice of the changes. His editor, the same as mine, said that he hadn’t made the changes to the column, but rather that our Senior Forum Editor, Kate Gaertner, had. She claims the changes were a matter of length, but this obviously false. While the length was cut, most of the changes made involved either the removal of contextually-necessary facts or a major softening of tone. Comparing the two versions, there is no question that the one ran was inferior, and a discredit to the author’s name.
So imagine my displeasure when this week I opened up a copy of the paper to find that I was Gaertner’s latest victim (something she confirmed via email after getting wind of my reaction). The old editors, whose term ended in April, never once made a substantive change to any of my articles, instead only making minor grammar or syntax tweaks as they deemed necessary. While I happen to have disagreed with some of their alterations, I was never truly ashamed to see my name attached to the columns as printed. That is unfortunately no longer the case. On Wednesday, I submitted my latest article about Alberto Fujimori, and saw a disturbingly different version run on Friday.
Here’s how the two versions compare (excluding the sort of minor changes I didn’t find particularly bothersome):
This past Tuesday, Alberto Fujimori, the 70 year old former President of Peru, was convicted of murder and other less serious offenses by a panel of three judges just outside of Lima, and was given a 25 year prison sentence.
This past Tuesday, Alberto Fujimori, the 70-year-old former President of Peru, was convicted of murder by a panel of three judges just outside of Lima and sentenced to a 25-year prison sentence.
Dropped “lesser charges” to make the sentence factually erroneous.
“Sentenced to a sentence” is terrible wording.
He was convicted not because he pulled a trigger, but because during his decade in power, it is alleged that he ordered a branch of Army Intelligence to perform strategic executions. The veracity of this assertion still unproven to a sufficient extent that he deserved conviction aside, let us consider the situation in Peru when Fujimori came to power, as compared to the shape he left it in.
He was convicted not because he pulled a trigger but because during his decade in power, it is alleged that he ordered a branch of Army Intelligence to perform strategic executions. The degree to which he deserved conviction remains questionable, but aside from that, it is imperative that we consider the situation in Peru when Fujimori came to power, as compared to the shape he left it in.
Massive meaning change. It goes from questioning the allegations themselves to how fair his convition was, and based on the rest of the article, it would seem to imply the question hinges upon his job in office. However, his excellence as President and his supposed guilt are largely different questions and I tried to separate them (still answering both), in the article.
Peru first returned to democratic elections in 1980 (after a dozen years of military dictatorship), at which time the student-driven Maoist Shining Path group was offered the opportunity to participate and present their platform to the voting public…Indeed, in 1989 alone, the Shining Path murdered 100 politicians as part of a campaign to prevent voting throughout Peru, because they believed the practice enforced the capitalist system they so violently rejected.
Peru first returned to democratic elections in 1980, after a dozen years of military dictatorship. At this time, the student-driven, communist Maoist Shining Path group was offered the opportunity to participate and present their platform to the voting public…In 1989 alone, the Shining Path murdered 100 politicians as part of a campaign to prevent voting throughout Peru, because they believed that voting enforced a capitalist system that they found despicable.
Addition of the word communist before Maoist, which is not only redundant (being that it is a school of communist thinking), but unnecessary, in that anybody who is unfamiliar with Maoism had no business reading this article. And I should hope that WashU students have learned such basic information by this point in their lives.
Further, to find an ideology “despicable” is not problematic. The problem comes in the violence. By removing the “violently reject” phrase, the sentence is too mild in its approach to the Shining Path.
But the problems Fujimori inherited did not end with the security threat posed by the massive communist insurgency.
But the problems Fujimori inherited did not end with the security threat posed by the communist insurgency.
Removing massively again gives the Shining Path too little blame. They controlled large sections of the country, and for years were one of the most violent and threatening insurgencies anywhere in the world.
And, not only did he drain the national reserves, but he left Peru owing more than $14 billion to foreign nations, the cost increasing greatly through interest because he refused to service the massive debt he helped create.
In addition to draining the national reserves, Garcia left Peru owing more than $14 billion to foreign nations.
First, it makes Garcia seem less at fault, since it fails to make clear that he was the source for much of the debt. That becomes especially important given the essay’s conclusion. Beyond that, the refusal to pay debts is important, because again that caused great problems for Peru that Fujimori had to overcome. So this change ultimately serves to advance Garcia at the expense of Fujimori, which is unacceptable.
It is only in the years since he left office and power was turned over to less competent politicians, that the group or splinter factions of it have begun to once more function.
It is only in the years since he left office and power was turned over to less competent politicians that the splinter factions of the Shining Path organization have begun to function once again.
This sentence was rendered factually incorrect. While the splinter factions are most active, technically speaking there is still a Shining Path, which the original acknowledged and the altered version does not.
Still, their resurgence has been greatly limited in scale by the crippling blow Fujimori delivered to the terrorist organization.
Still, their resurgence has been greatly limited in scale thanks to the measures taken by Fujimori.
This again gives Fujimori too little credit. He didn’t passively make a few changes in law and happen to succeed. He instead put forth a massive military effort to crush the infrastructure of the organization, similar to what Sri Lanka’s government is doing to the LTTE.
That he also managed to save Peru’s economy is praiseworthy at the very least.
Moreover, the way Fujimori salvaged Peru’s economy is praiseworthy at the least
The original phrasing treats the preceeding as true, and commends him greatly for ALSO fixing the economy. The new phasing, coherence issues aside, suggests that even if the above is false, he saved the economy. In other words, it undermines my entire tone and defense.
But in view of the highly questionable nature of much of what he was found guilty of, and the exceptionally positive legacy of his rule, his imprisonment is entirely inappropriate.
But in light of the questionable nature of the accusations brought against him, and the positive legacy of his rule, his imprisonment is inappropriate
Again, the tone is muted by removing my zeal. Words like “highly” before questionable, “exceptionally” before positive, and “entirely” before inappropriate are important in conveying the utter absurdity of the conviction, which was the entire point of the article.
Rather, pending proper alteration to the term limit laws, Fujimori should be free to run for office once more, as he has expressed an interest in doing.
Rather, pending proper alteration to the term limit laws, Fujimori should be free to run for office once more, as he has expressed an interest in doing so.
Adding “so” at the end of the sentence is unnecessary, and makes the sentence less coherent.
So as you can see, the changes were extensive. And if she tries to claim it was a length issue (when I meet with her, which I’m scheduled to do), as she did with the other non-liberal columnist, that will not stand. Under the old staff, I ran four articles exceeding 850 words. I never had a hard word limit, just a suggestion that the be under 1000 words. Last week, my first article under the new editors ran uncensored and was 930 words. I was however warned about keeping future submissions under 800 words. The Fujimori piece, as submitted, was 666 words long. As ran, it was 647 words. I somehow doubt a 19 word reduction for a column well below the upper limit was needed. And certainly, such changes didn’t have to fundamentally alter my tone and argument, as Gaertner’s atrocious version did.
I find it concerning that in two weeks both non-liberal writers have suffered the same fate at the hands of an editor that has only been in charge since the start of April. Her predecessors has the good sense to treat non-liberal writers fairly, so as not to force their resignation and render the paper entirely devoid of any shred of ideological balance. While the paper was (and is) overwhelming liberal, those previously in charge were never so boldly hostile to differing opinions. I can’t imagine how Gaertner will attempt to justify this, or how further the quality of the paper will decline under her control, but I suppose I’ll find out soon enough.
UPDATE: I met with the Senior Forum Editor to discuss this issue. Some highlights:
* I presented her with a list of changes and notations of why they were unacceptable (see above). She tried to argue with one or two of them, generally conceded that I had a valid point, and apologized for the errors made.
* I noted that my biggest issue was that many of her alterations changed my tone, and this was completely inappropriate. She stated that she had intended as much, because being the only international issues writer for Student Life, she wanted to make sure the position taken wasn’t too extreme. I told her point blank that I’d soon tender my resignation than moderate my tone to whatever it was she regarded as acceptable.
* Evidently disinterested in that scenario, she then proposed that I move online only, which I quickly rejected. Print may be a dying media, but I refuse to be chased out of it for not towing the liberal line.
* Next, she proposed that every week she writes a response to my column to provide balance. I made clear to her that I cover a broad range of material, some it quite obscure. So, while I wouldn’t feel the need to stop her from responding to my articles, I wouldn’t feel compelled to go mainstream either. And that would translate to substantial additional research on her part, especially on occasions where the topic of choice pertains to my areas of expertise (Israel and the Balkans).
* She then asked about doing that just when bigger international issues arose. As I noted, I generally avoid such stories, but were I to address them, her rebuttal would be fine. I did however make clear that I objected to her efforts to essentially provide “balance” against my column and not the vast multitude of liberal columns. After all, I am one of two conservative writers total, and by far the more controversial and hawkish of the two (being that the other is a libertarian).
* Ultimately, it ended with her promising to only make grammatical changes in the future, with my continued contributions hinging upon her keeping her word.
I’m still extremely concerned about the direction this paper is headed given some of her answers/suggestions, as well as those issues detailed above, though for now I’ll continue writing. But, if ever again I should see my article so butchered, then said piece shall be my last.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles: