Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to the opinion piece written by the editorial board in the last issue of The Vista. While I respect the board's pursuit of "just and fair reporting," I would like to challenge some of the statements made. The board acknowledges "the diversity of the students on campus" and holds that "[The Vista] should reflect this diversity." However, the article goes on to express resentment for having been asked by the paper's advisor to represent this diversity by displaying different views pertaining to Proposition 8, an incredibly significant piece of legislature. I am a student who voted no on Prop 8 and I also know many people who share my same views on the subject. On the other hand, I also know and respect many USD students who differ on the issue and consequentially voted yes on the proposition. I think it is interesting that rather than celebrate the passionate debate that The Vista sparked by printing the "yes" article, the editorial staff is offended to be associated with it. As a reader of The Vista and a proponent of gay marriage, I welcome the controversy. Is it not the purpose of a paper to present different arguments, so that we may be a better-educated, well-rounded society? To understand the opposing argument is to better understand our own. As students we should welcome the culture of learning with which college presents us. I find the assistant dean's demand to be reasonable in this case and perceive her actions to be just the opposite of how the board took them: precisely in the interest of students. To assume that the entire student body agreed with the letters The Vista received on the issue is simply unfair. Even if it were investigated and found to be true, what use is a biased paper that reiterates one popular view? We might as well have conversations with ourselves. Personally, I want my ideas to be challenged so my own arguments can be more developed. Yes, USD could stand to relax its regulations, especially regarding artistic expression (AS concerts, for example). However, this particular debate was a meaningful one, personal to many people. It thus deserved thorough exploration. To discount the "other" voice is an injustice that no paper should encourage.
Sincerly, Chelsea Pacino Senior
