CHAPARRAL

The X, Y, Z Affair
by Roger Bowerman, Chair, Social Sciences Division

Des Kilkeary's recent Chaparral article,

"X, Y and You Could Be Z," cries out for a response.

First, let me agree— with just about everyone on campus—that the existing board policies that regulate the Judicial Board are outdated and need to be revised. The truth is they are currently undergoing a wholesale revision initiated early this calendar year.

Beyond the need for Judicial Board revision, however, there is little in the October article I can embrace. The tone of the article is unnecessarily inflammatory, the means of argument and use of evidence are faulty, and the publication of the article raises grave concerns regarding the editorial process of the Chaparral. Let me take each of these issues in turn.

I appreciate, even applaud, well-crafted writing. Precision in word choice is a high goal in writing, and one that Mr. Kilkeary has honed in his years with the pen. That is why the hyperbole in the October Chaparral is particularly troublesome. To equate GCC Judicial Board procedures with the United States' creation of hundreds of political prisoners in Guantanamo Bay moves beyond literary technique. There is an accusation of covert extra-legality that simply does not reflect campus realities. The reader is encouraged to equate the two, finding the Judicial Board guilty through association.

To make matters worse, Mr. Kilkeary attempts to substantiate this erroneous image with a faulty argument and inadequate evidence. He succumbs to a fundamental writing flaw: argument by assertion. Let me take one example, his statement: "the JB members were apparently so enthralled with the testimony that they failed to cross examine the witness." This statement implies intentionality on the part of the Judicial Board members without a shred of evidence. How could Mr. Kilkeary know what was going on inside the minds of the participants? There is a leap here (as there is elsewhere in the article) that is damning if true. I question the truth of these statements.

As if this were not enough, Mr. Kilkeary grounds the heart of his attack upon statements by interested parties. According to Mr. Kilkeary's declaration to me, involved faculty members provided the only descriptions of the infamous meeting. I don't even want to get into the breach in confidentiality inherent in this declaration.

Instead, let me say that as an historian I know the limitations of biased sources, and would never accept one side's first-hand accounts as "true." But this is exactly what this experienced journalist has done. Without acknowledging there might be alternative interpretations of events, Mr. Kilkeary attacks the proceedings as somehow "unfair" and too "pro-student."

Considering all of the above problems, how did this flawed article reach the light of day? The answer is simple. Des Kilkeary, as the editor-in-chief, can publish whatever he wants to without bringing it before the editorial board of the Chaparral. I respect Mr. Kilkeary's editorial skills. They allow various contributors to maintain their voice while preventing fundamental stylistic and grammatical errors. I doubt he would have accepted his own article if it had been submitted by another. Existing policy does not allow for the sounding board that every writer needs to make sure personal opinion does not cloud judgment. I see this as a fundamental problem with the Chaparral, and call for the editorial board to reconsider its current system. &