To the Editor:
Ken Girardin needs to sit back and calm down. The College Republicans were not slandered by The Polytechnic, the word’s very definition dictates oral damage rather than written (libel would be the word he was looking for). Perhaps before suggesting that The Poly look up the word, he should have done so himself. Second, the reputation of the College Republicans was not damaged by either of the two articles in question, and thus should not be considered libelous.
Nowhere in the article “Film Starts Debate” does it suggest that the College Republicans were objecting to the presentation of the film to obtain funding for their club, the only statement that could be construed as such came from Bob Fishel, former officer of the College Republicans. Additionally, while the College Republicans may not have officially brought the five clubs mentioned to the E-Board, Bob Fishel and Doug Kingman did. Coincidentally, they were two of the founders of the College Republicans—it’s easy to see where the mistake may have been made.
In the article, it was also never stated that the College Republicans objected to the showing of Fahrenheit 9/11; it was stated that they objected because its showing would violate Union budgeting policies. In actuality, UPAC Cinema receives money from the Union for its movies as more of a loan and the proceeds from ticket sales are used to pay that loan back. So in reality, UPAC Cinema did not use $955 of student activity fund money to show Fahrenheit 9/11 as was stated.
I do agree with Girardin on one thing: it is a shame this must come down to a letter to the editor. I did take him up on his offer and went to the College Republican website expecting to find some startling fact about Andrew Tibbetts’ credibility. Instead, I found a two year old story of minor consequence. I don’t know about most people, but I have matured significantly in the past two years and would expect that the same would go for Tibbetts and every other person on campus. I also have been assured that Tibbetts contacted Girardin prior to publishing his article and received no response. I want to know what malicious inaccuracies Girardin thought were in the article. Most of it dealt with what happened at an E-Board meeting that Girardin did not attend.
In closing, the only place where the College Republicans are attacked is in the beginning of Girardin’s initial letter. Other than that, they are only mentioned as having brought up the argument and having been denied funding. If Girardin has issues with an article it should be with the staff editorial not Tibbetts’ news article. I don’t have any advice and I sincerely hope that this issue can finally be laid to rest.
David Palermo
ITEC ’05
