When I was at a bar last weekend, a guy came up to me. I hate stereotypes, but in this case an exception is key toward making my case. He was the stereotypical Southern fraternity guy.
He accused me and this paper of being, in many ways, anti-Greek.
While I was more than willing to respond, I was not about to engage in a debate at 1:30 in the morning at 17-16 .
So instead of an endless conversation, I decided to opt for a written statement to explain and defend the policies of this paper.
The Auburn Plainsman has never shown animosity toward any fraternity or sorority at this University.
The notion that somehow this paper is out to destroy the Greek system and attempt to dismantle the good standing it has is, frankly, a crock of crap for many reasons.
The Plainsman has better things to consume time than to surmise attacks to see how many Greeks it can eradicate in a given week.
I think the eight members of fraternities and sororities on staff at this paper would agree with me
Since The Plainsman’s conception in 1893, certain policies have been set forth as situations arose.
The Plainsman does not cover stories dealing with individual fraternities or sororities except in the case of safety.
The reasoning behind not covering any Greek chapters is simple: we don’t have the manpower or the space. The Plainsman would never be able to give each chapter equal space and that would create pitfalls.
Since August, there have been two stories regarding an individual Greek chapter: the probation of Sigma Alpha Epsilon in October 2007 and last month’s reporting of the man who stole more than $900,000 from Alpha Tau Omega had been sentenced to prison.
Two stories, accounting for less than a combined 1,000 words, have apparently caused a rift between The Auburn Plainsman and Greek life at Auburn.
While the ATO story was seen by many to be viewpoint neutral, the editorial that ran the same week in this paper acutely came across to some as out of line or naïve.
But first, to SAE.
The Plainsman had more than two on-the-record sources confirming allegations and acts of hazing, but the details of any alleged hazing occurrences were withheld from print.
It was my call to withhold, because after many rumors floating across campus, the Interfraternity Council Court hearings and the punishment, in effect, the story was over.
I was not going to fill crucial space in this paper with allegations that would have no doubt further smeared the reputation of one my University’s organizations.
The actions taken by IFC Court showed that under great pressure, the system works. Something might have failed along the way in an individual chapter, but the method of checks and balances is sound.
The editorial regarding ATO was more or less advice on what to do with money. No offense was meant, but obviously some was taken.
Make love, not war. Drop beats, not bombs.
David Ingram is the Editor of The Auburn Plainsman. You can reach him at 844-9021.
