By Catherine Owsik, Copy Editor
I came into the Journal this year with little knowledge of the paper, the process and especially the people involved. After a couple training sessions and editorial boards I felt perfectly at ease and soon enough we all became more than colleagues, we became more like teammates … unfortunately it’s starting to look like we actually have an opposing team to band against.
I guess I came into the position with a bit of a naïve outlook, when I heard there was tension between various groups and the Journal I thought it couldn’t be true, it must’ve been a thing of past years. I’m sad to say that since then my opinion has changed, and the recent motion brought towards the AMS from Victoria Pleavin has just reinforced this.
My realization of a bias against the Journal began when I helped cover the AMS elections by attending an AMS election party. For the most part everyone was kind and friendly, and it felt wonderful to share the nerves and excitement with such a large group of people, but there were a couple instances where this wasn’t the case.
Early on in the night I was approached by a man and after he had finished introducing himself he asked what I was doing with a pad of paper in my hand, “Oh I’m here from the Journal …”, and before I could even finish introducing myself he had cocked his body back with a look of disgust. Really? I was so surprised with his reaction that I went straight out with it and asked him why he didn’t like the Journal … And he had no answer. He sputtered about some past event that he clearly had no real opinion of and then walked away.
This same situation happened again during the night, just with a different person who was even more abrupt and rude. I’ve got to say that it wasn’t so much that my feelings were hurt as that I was just in awe that someone would take their friend-of-a-friend’s opinion of the Journal so much to heart that they would be rude to a complete stranger.
The recent motion brought to AMS Assembly reminds of that night. There is no reason why the content we published throughout the year should be investigated; the Journal is an informative publication that relays content to students and faculty that they would actually enjoy to read.
The way I see it, the only difference between our layout and a national newspaper is the absence of a cartoon section … which (if I’m allowed a bit of a joke) is why the Golden Words is on campus. It’s really unfortunate that some personal grudges are growing out of hand to the point of questioning our content and legitimacy.
What problem do people really have with the Journal? And to those who do, wouldn’t you like these problems addressed? All I can think of is that if nobody can say anything then there is just going to be a growing animosity between groups in the school that will be passed on from year to year, quickly losing the why.
At the Journal we pride ourselves in being a student-run publication and it is really unfortunate to see our editorial autonomy being questioned like this by fellow students. I would like to start seeing a change away from this cycle of grudges, if we extend an arm to faculty societies and ask for your opinion and help, I hope to get a response.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.
