Professor Mark Lance, in his column “For Real Change, Vote on the Real Issues” (THE HOYA, Sept. 19, 2008, A3) left me worried about the caliber of faculty Georgetown apparently now accepts into its ranks. Leaving aside the egregious generalizations, mischaracterizations, faulty reading of history and pronouncements that would not stand up to even the most cursory peer review in an academic journal, Professor Lance’s vitriolic, hate-filled tone was enough to turn off any discerning reader from his article.

Lance’s piece amounts to little more than (what must have been for him) a therapeutic venting of anger and hatred. There, there, professor, let it all out. Those mean Republicans sure are uniformly evil, and all CEOs hate poor people. What worries me here is Lance is entrusted with teaching students how to think, and I don’t think he’s very qualified for the job.

But the biggest problem is that, as a Libertarian, I now feel more inclined to vote Republican because of the tone of Professor Lance’s article, and that, I think, was not his goal. At a time when people keep repeating the bromide that we are divided as a nation, Lance courageously steps into the breach and … one-sidedly attacks any and every representative of “the other” he can think of. Wonder why people keep saying America is “so divided?” Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Professor Mark Lance, Exhibit A.

J.P. Medved (MSB ’09)

Sept. 19, 2008

In response to the editorial “There’s Nothing Juicy About It” (THE HOYA, Sept. 19, 2008, A2), the banning of from the campus network is a precedent that Georgetown University cannot afford to set. It is clear that many students, including me, find the Web site offensive, disgusting, tasteless and prurient. There even is a question of if the Web site’s content borders on libel. However, these reactions from students, the administration and others are not a serious enough reason to ban the Web site.

The university should not and cannot be allowed to censor Internet material that it does not like or finds “offensive.” This is a dangerous precedent to set and has many wider and more damaging implications than the simple removal of an irritating gossip Web site. Where will the limits to Web censorship on campus end? A Pandora’s Box is now being opened, a process which, once done, cannot be undone. is an easy target to demonize now, but who or what will next earn the ire of the powers that be, that presumably will have control over what is censored? What happens if an unaffiliated – or affiliated, for argument’s sake – student group that is advocating for student issues “offends” someone, and then their Web site and thus their online presence is censored? (H*yas for Choice, anyone?)

The ends to which the power of Web censorship on campus can be abused, improperly used to stifle debate, and harm students’ interests are too numerous to go into detail in a letter like this. We can only hope that cooler heads will prevail once again, after people have had a chance to reflect on the potential consequences of their actions.

Jared Pilosio (SFS ’09)

Sept. 20, 2008

Have a reaction to this article? Write a letter to the editor.

Comments are closed.