WTF? ARE YOU SERIOUS?!
Posted by The Voice Staff on February 26, 2010 at 10:50 am
Reading FM today one of our staff writers found this little gem:
In case you can’t read that little box quite right, here’s the actual text:
Two true things:
1. Thanks to the Class of 2013, visits to Stillman for alcohol-related issues have reached a historic high
2. The Class of 2013 is the most socioeconomically diverse class in Harvard’s history
Giving no context for these “two true things”, we wonder how FM will defend this. Don’t see what we mean? Publishing these “two true things” is not only totally irrelevant, but implies that the greater socioeconomic diversity at Harvard somehow explains the rise in alcoholism. Transitive property. Y’all are smart, you don’t need us to explain why this is super fucked up.
wait this post is absurd. as in, why are you trying to create drama? you obviously know that FM didn’t intend to imply that the increase in diversity is linked to alcohol, why are you trying to make them look bad when you’re the one who is making that link.
If they didn’t want the link to be made, why would they have put those two together in the same box? There are a ton of other “true facts” that could have been there instead…
i think it’s a rather obvious foul move on fm’s part. to say there are two true things about the freshman class without expecting people to transpose some correlation between them would be naive. sure, each fact is true–but presenting them as such implies that they are inextricable or related. i’m not arguing it was deliberate necessarily, but i think that there is a serious problem with the conclusions one can draw from reading this that are offensive to many people.
I think you’re conveniently interpreting “socioeconomic diversity” to mean “more poor people” which I find, if not offensive, pretty obnoxious. In any case, if you actually read FM frequently enough to pass judgment on it you would know that the “Two true things” box is always filled with things which are precisely not causally related. You’re like those people who pick up The Onion by accident and are mortified to learn that old people are getting shipped off to North Korea to participate in early cadaver programs or something equally ridiculous.
I don’t think it’s obnoxious to consider ‘socioeconomic diversity’ to be read as exactly what it is: a greater range of individuals from different fiscal backgrounds. Obviously, universities have empirically had more students from the middle to upper classes until the more recent decade. I think putting it so crudely as “more poor people” is rather belittling–but more “socioeconomic diversity” is the politically correct way of saying that. Irrespective of whether or not I am a constant reader of FM it doesn’t mean that two facts put together in the same box don’t have some kind of relation. To compare FM to the Onion is a strong disservice to FM in that they are not a parodic publication, but rather one that is supposed to report “truth.” If they choose to do so, then perhaps they should be more judicious in the facts they choose to juxtapose since clearly everyone is not a “frequent” reader.
Might I add that comparing FM to The Onion is also a disservice to The Onion?
I do agree that socioeconomic diversity means exactly that the Class of 2013 has more students from economic brackets whose members have not historically had access to higher education (especially at places like Harvard). In other words, the Class of 2013 has more students from lower economic brackets. That’s neither convenient nor obnoxious; that’s a direct interpretation of FM’s statement. And instead of criticizing that interpretation, let’s consider what it really means: contrary to the stereotype, not every student at Harvard is a rich brat. In fact, some of us worked to get here, and some of us are on a LOT of financial aid. Harvard has made great strides in making higher education more accessible to smart, goal-oriented people who aren’t members of the traditional upper class.
Finally, given the structure of FM, it was (I hope) a hugely stupid editorial oversight to juxtapose a statement about socioeconomic background with a statement about alcohol problems. Yes, FM sometimes puts two marginally related statements in the TTT box; however, this does not excuse the publication of two statements that can be linked in a very insensitive way. [Virtually] Nobody would take offense to this box if the statements in question did not address issues that many people interpret as causally related. It is a vicious and unfortunate stereotype that alcohol abuse is a problem of the poor. That is the implied message–however unintentional–that FM sends readers with this juxtaposition. In fact, alcohol abuse affects people of all different socioeconomic classes.
Think about another stereotype: that rich kids in Ivy League schools are airheads who get “Gentleman C’s.” If FM published the following:
1. The Class of 2013 has the lowest average SAT scores in 20 years.
2. The Class of 2013 boasts the highest average household income in 20 years.
See, careless publishing has offensive consequences.
Do you guys get jokes?
LOLZ
I appreciate funny jokes. This is not one.
“I think you’re conveniently interpreting “socioeconomic diversity” to mean “more poor people” which I find, if not offensive, pretty obnoxious.”
I think you’re conveniently trying to make a point which you know isn’t true – also obnoxious. Of course that’s what that means. Don’t be stupid.
kathleen french and former FM fan[and OP], amen.
There are many things wrong with this post, but I’ll choose to focus on one: the transitive property, which claims that if A implies B and B implies C, then A implies C. So if the Voice is hating on other student publications and if other student publications are organizations that have more legitimacy, then the Voice is hating on organizations that have more legitimacy.
The reason that the transitive property doesn’t apply here is that you’re saying that if A implies B and A implies C, then B implies C. This is the simple case of correlation not implying causation. FM is saying that 2013 implies drunkenness and 2013 implies diversity, which does not mean that drunkenness implies diversity.
So the charge you’re making isn’t just scurrilous and stupid. It’s also illogical. Y’all are smart, you don’t need me to explain why this is super fucked up.
this is being blown way out of proportion.
yes, maybe fm should have realized what this might imply to students, but it’s nowhere near “super fucked up”, and i doubt that anyone actually took this to mean what this blog post is suggesting.
i dont understand why the voice seems to go out of its way to hate the crimson for small things like this. maybe you guys should focus on producing more legitimate content rather than bashing on an organization that works hard to produce content on a daily – or in FM’s case, weekly – basis.
Hmm, funny how these aren’t numbers, but statements situated in a broader social context. That’s the very same type of thinking that justifies people making extremely classist assumptions.
Moreover, to reduce this to an issue of The Voice trying to discredit The Crimson/FM is absurd. First of all, the choice to post this blog was clearly made by an individual staff member. If you think that the editors instruct their writers to find stories that make The Crimson look absurd, then think again. Second of all, what does the Voice have to gain from making The Crimson look bad. The Crimson runs off of its reputation– that’s probably the only reason it still exists given its subpar standards of journalism. The Voice clearly does not aspire to the same scope or intent. It is self-admittedly absurd, not jut absurd by chance.
That is all I have to add to this discussion.
There are certainly quite a lot of particulars like that to take into consideration. That is a great level to convey up. I provide the thoughts above as normal inspiration however clearly there are questions just like the one you bring up the place an important factor can be working in honest good faith. I don?t know if greatest practices have emerged round issues like that, however I’m sure that your job is clearly recognized as a good game. Each girls and boys feel the affect of only a second’s pleasure, for the remainder of their lives.