Letter to the Editor

Jacob Bloch

This letter is in response to The Sch- reiber Times’ May editorial, which was devoid of rational, truthful thought. The editorial proved that The Schreiber Times, along with many Women’s Day presenters and organizers, lack journalis- tic integrity.
On April 30, 311 AD, Roman Emperor Galerius issued the Edict of Toleration, ending the Diocletianic Persecution of Christians. It is serendipitous that on the same day, 1,704 years later, one of the most tolerant events in Schreiber’s history was held, Turning Point USA’s Gender Wage Gap Discussion. Despite it being one of the most tolerant events, it will forever be associated with intolerance, not because of actions by this event or its members, but because of close-minded, biased stu- dents and teachers.
In 2015, oppression is not behind us, because students and teachers shunned an open, diverse event, and then used the newspaper as a mechanism to unfound- edly slander a club and its president.
This article will be published on June 10, which is also serendipitous, because Psalms 6:10 declares, “All my enemies will be overwhelmed with shame and an- guish; they will turn back and be put to shame.” Let me permit this.
Senior Lena Kogan, a Women’s Day presenter, found fault in our discussion because there was no “unbiased mediator,” who would prevent the discussion from “evolving into personal arguments.” This is false because I allowed every individual to freely share opinions. Had several of our critics actually attended the discus- sion, they would have realized the discus- sion was without bias or ad hominems.
Senior Sabina Unni, a Women’s Day presenter, came to the same conclusion about the event lacking an “unbiased moderator.” First, this is false, because no bias manifested itself in my moderat- ing. Second, while I recognize that there could have been faults in the discussion, this is true for every event. When I at- tended Women’s Day, I noticed several in- stances of bias on behalf of the presenters, misleading students. This is also the case for the Treehugger club, which previously screened Gasland, a documentary proven to contradict scientific evidence. How- ever, due to bias, two seniors who serve in Treehugger board positions have called our event “biased” and “aggressive,” but not the politically-charged, false, and mis- leading screening.
What defines open-minded people from close-minded people is recogniz- ing problems and taking steps to resolve them. When Dr. Sachs, a Women’s Day teacher adviser, was emailed asking about possible improvements for the Women’s Day, she did not respond. While the Women’s Day and Treehugger Club did not take measures to fix several of my concerns, TPUSA has already launched a committee to improve future discussions.
Finally, our event should not be judged based on snapshots. Critics of our event, including several Women’s Day present- ers, cannot credibly or fairly criticize an event that lasted over an hour, when they left after 20 minutes.
“They want to be heard, but didn’t want to listen to other sides. So they left when they finished. Very unprofessional in my point of view,” said sophomore and TPUSA member Andrew Falzone.
Senior Sally Kuan, a Women’s Day presenter, stated that the announce- ments were “accusatory,” “more intended to displease individuals with conflicting beliefs.” However, the announcements merely asked questions, like if the wage gap is caused by biology, choices, or dis- crimination, without making any claims.
I cannot continue criticizing individuals, as The Schreiber Times has made its own mistakes. This editorial-board called announcements and posters promoting the event “propaganda-like” and “mis- leading.” I welcome discussion about our announcements and posters; however, it cannot be one-sided. If the editorial- board was to use the criteria that called our posters “propaganda-like,” it would have come to the same conclusion for the Women’s Day.
Senior Ana Espinoza previously pro- moted Women’s Day by standing be- hind a sign that read she “deserves more than 77%,” as though she can only earn 77-cents for every dollar made by a man. This is “propaganda-like” and “mislead- ing” because it distorts the U.S. Census Bureau, which is comparing median earn- ings without considering factors like edu- cation and occupation. However, using Espinoza’s methodology, our posters are justified, because there is a wage gap in the White House.
Why does TPUSA’s event experience scrutiny, but not the Women’s Day? The answer lies in a web of conflicts of inter- est. During publication, the Editor-in- Chief was Espinoza, a Women’s Day co- ordinator. The place of the editorial, the opinions section, was edited by Unni, another Women’s Day coordinator. Why didn’t The Schreiber Times teacher ad- visers not point out this conflict of inter- est? Again, another conflict of interest. One adviser is Ms. Zarkh, a Women’s Day teacher adviser.
I still feel sympathy for those who pro- tested the discussion because they will eventually realize that they stood on the wrong side of history. In the future, they may be perceived like those who blocked the Little Rock Nine or like those who at- tended the American Bund rallies.

Best regards,
Jacob Bloch