To the Editor:

For the first time in a long time, The Polytechnic has fulfilled my expectations. I predicted that my organization, the RPI College Republicans, would be misrepresented—slandered—in last week’s issue, and that, while rich in mistruths, any piece that mentioned us would be devoid of journalistic value. Let me be the first to congratulate you on your achievement, because I’m certainly not the first to notice it.

The news story “Film Starts Debate” said the RPI College Republicans had previously brought similar arguments against other clubs to the Executive Board. The staff editorial said the RPI College Republicans objected to the showing of Fahrenheit 9/11 and went so far as to suggest that this was part of a grandiose scheme for us to gain Union funding. While The Polytechnic editors are free to express their opinions, it would be greatly appreciated if they could periodically pay attention to the facts.

Fact: Prior to Tuesday evening, the RPI College Republicans had never taken a case of this nature before the E-Board. As one of the original members and officers, I can attest to this, as can the club’s members and our minutes. Of course, if those sources of evidence pose the risk of being partisan, the Polytechnic is welcome to examine the E-Board’s minutes, even though they neglected to do so prior to leveling this charge.

Fact: While the membership has yet to even discuss the issue of working to get funding from the Union, I’m opposed to the idea myself. I feel the system should be left as it is today, simply with adequate enforcement.

Fact: The RPI College Republicans did not object to Fahrenheit 9/11 being shown on RPI campus—if we’d wanted to stop it from being shown, we’d have done just that. Our objection rested with the student body being expected to foot the bill to show a piece of propaganda.

It’s a shame it takes a letter to the editor to clear up such simple misunderstandings. To find out how these innocent mistakes came to pass, one must only consider the source.

Andrew Tibbetts is a managing editor for The Polytechnic, and lent his literary genius to the news piece about the UPAC Cinema matter. Despite the malicious inaccuracies that he chose to pepper his work with, Tibbetts can rest easy; I’m not holding him to any journalistic standards. Now, out of respect for The Polytechnic, namely their Editorial Editor, who has graciously let me usurp more than my fair share of space for two weeks in a row, I’m going to avoid making what some may consider to be a personal attack in the face of such hospitality. But I encourage any readers who are interested in knowing just how I learned that Tibbetts supports media bias to take a look at the College Republicans’ website, http://republicans.union.rpi.edu, for a full explanation. In light of such evidence, I can only wonder whether he should be at the helm of the only newspaper on campus.

The staff editorial ended with a word of advice for my club, saying we should accept the E-Board’s inaction, and stop trying to interpret the rules to benefit ourselves. I found the remark to be juvenile and pompous, but as long as we’re in the business of offering each other counsel, I have an idea to share; The Polytechnic needs to look the word “slander” up in the dictionary, because if my organization ever has reason to believe we’ve experienced such a thing again, our response will be a subpoena, not a letter to the editor.

Ken Girardin

Chairman

RPI College Republicans

MATL ’06