Letter prompts fierce reader feedback

The letter to the editor on soccer player Lassi Hurskainen that ran in last week’s issue of The Blue Banner provoked fierce reader response directed both at the writer and at the Banner’s decision to publish it.

The Banner received more feedback about this one letter than anything else in my five semesters on staff, indicating just how raw a nerve it touched.

Via phone calls, e-mails, conversations and, for the first time this year, a typed letter, concerned readers expressed dismay at our decision.

Let me explain why we ran the letter, why we granted partial anonymity, and then, on a broader scale, let me examine the relationship between student-athletes and the campus community.

First, I strongly contest allegations that the Banner this semester has an anti-athletics bias. We have a three-page sports section and ran, so far, 24 positive or neutral stories on games, events and programs.

Last week, for example, we highlighted an innovative training program and excitement over the upcoming basketball season.

On the other hand, we ran one news story examining the athletics student fee and one critical letter. I think our record speaks for itself.

Why, readers asked, did the Banner publish the letter, and why was the writer’s last name masked?

As the “dedicated forum for free speech” on campus, the Banner must abide by certain guidelines, including the consideration for publication of all letters. No letter to the editor reflects the personal views or opinions of our staff members.

In our Sept. 30 edition, for example, the Banner ran a letter harshly criticizing an editorial I wrote that included personal attacks. Not only did we run the letter, but we also granted editorial space to the writer the following week.

I highlight this to show we try to be as fair as possible. Disagreeing with letters, either in tone or content, does not give us license to censor them through omission.

Many readers criticized the letter merely as a personal attack on Hurskainen.

Although it is undeniably harsh, the letter dealt with Hurskainen’s athletic skill, attitude and team spirit. Since he plays in a program directly supported by student fees, our professional opinion was that his conduct on the field was fair game for discussion.

Several readers asked if we would run letters critical of students participating in any fee-supported program.

My answer is, “yes,” if, and only if, the letters deal with the students’ conduct in direct regards to their fee-funded activity or group.

If readers write letters criticizing my conduct as editor of the Banner, or complaining about the Student Government Association president’s conduct in his official role, for example, we strongly consider them for publication.

One reader questioned if we would run a letter from a student criticizing another because he or she did not do quality work in the classroom, or from an angry ex-girlfriend who wrote to the Banner about her former boyfriend.

My answer, in both cases, would be an unequivocal “no.” But the writer of the letter criticized Hurskainen as an athlete playing in a program supported by $605 of his student fees this year, not as a fellow student or as a jealous ex-lover, just as the writer of the letter critical of me criticized me as editor of the Banner, not as a fellow student.

Why, readers asked, did we not publish the writer’s last name?

Anonymity in letters to the editor is something granted only in special circumstances. We refused the author’s request for complete anonymity, but agreed to mask his last name for two strong reasons, which I cannot discuss.

I’ve never met Hurskainen, and I, nor any member of the Banner staff, have anything against him. Our decision to run the letter was professional, not personal, and we wish him the best in his time at UNC Asheville.

The easy decision, I feel, would have been to ignore and discard the letter. Nobody would have known, except the writer, and we would have spared ourselves the heated criticism directed our way following publication.

The right decision was to publish the letter since its criticism was directed at Hurskainen the soccer player, not Hurskainen the individual.

From the perspective of a student, let me now examine the relationship between athletes and the campus community.

In my three years at UNCA, I’ve seen the great majority of students either support the athletics department or are neutral on the matter.

A vocal minority, though, are critical for several reasons.

First, they complain about the athletics fee. Students critical of the athletics fee see it in a very narrow, self-centered light, in my opinion.

In January 2008, I took a week off from school and went to South Carolina as a photographer for former Sen. John Edwards’ presidential campaign. While there, I rode with the traveling press, which included correspondents from most major news outlets.

Standing in a peanut warehouse one cold morning, with my breath crystallizing in the frigid air as about 200 people waited for Edwards to show up for a small rally, I began talking with CBS correspondent Aaron Lewis.

He asked where I went to school, and, when I told him, his eyes lit up with recognition.

“Ah, Kenny George!” he said.

That a member of the national media was familiar with UNCA both surprised me and showed me that, despite strong academics and innovative ideas, a robust athletics program with star athletes is often the best way to draw attention and support to a university.

Kenny, by the way, we miss you.

Second, critics complain student athletes form cliques.

What I fail to see is why athletes should be singled out for their strong sense of community. Nobody complains about the close friendship among SGA representatives, Banner editors or members of other groups.

You could argue that athletes need to work harder on integrating themselves on campus. But I would argue it is hypocritical of students to complain about how athletes interact with the rest of the campus community when they haven’t been to any games.

Why is it only up to athletes to integrate with the campus community? It should also be the campus community’s duty to integrate with athletes and to support their dedication and hard work.

Allowing sensitive topics to remain unexamined serves no one. Sometimes, positive change arises from passionate discussion.

If readers have any feedback, I encourage them to write in, no matter their opinion.

As the semester continues, I hope the Banner continues to facilitate an open campus conversation, even if it is sometimes heated.

6 comments

The Truth.

Wed Nov 11 2009 13:57

Lassi was recruited here to play ball, a student doesn't think he's doing well on the field. So he criticized the dudes performance, just like ESPN and all those guys criticize hundreds of athletes all the flipin time. UNCA teams could use that time practicing rather than embarrassing the school with repeat losing seasons in almost all sports minus men's and women's basketball, volleyball, and a decent track and field team.

Mark, Class of '98

Thu Nov 5 2009 11:26

I am interested in reading the letter itself, I have not but I have read what I can locate on this site to this point. It seems that if you can provide some partial anonymity to the letter's author, the same could have been true to mask the actual soccer player's name as well. This probably would not have taken away from the point of the letter's message but would have kept an unnecessary personal attack of a student-athlete and further division of various factors on campus from being stirred for really no reason. Nothing positive that I know of has come from that publication, so again, what was the point. The fact that BB published it with partial anonymity shows that staff there knew it was going to create a stir- you are becoming true journalists of the day providing non-productive drama to take the place of real change.

Students pay various fees which go to many things that they may not utilize fully. Again, that is a personal choice not to attend games or use the student weight room/amenities. Student fees and other things in life are exactly the same- you often pay for the greater good- I think that's what makes our country and culture so great.

Our culture also speaks to the right of free speech, but I don't think that the Banner would have published an anonymous letter commenting on the actions of a faculty member/professor if they weren't meeting one person's expectations. Student Fees go a long way to cover many things like that as well, so that alone doesn't provide some hall pass to publicly slam that person. That one $605 student fee is a small percentage of what that student-athlete actually receives- so if I pay 3-6% of another persons scholarship, that alone provides me the right to criticize them publicly??

I welcome all students to submit letters criticizing various folks on campus who your tuition/fees help to support or fund, if your professor in the classroom doesn't meet your individual expectations you should write a letter and that letter should be published with partial anonymity- That isn't an ex-girlfriend type letter and fits the BB practices to this point.

I understand why the BB would not want this letter’s author identity to be known, but I would also think we are interested in fostering courage not cowardice.

Matt

Wed Nov 4 2009 17:34

No problem Jacob, I'll keep an eye out for your letter in the next issue. I hope to see your full name too.

Jacob

Wed Nov 4 2009 17:30

I actually know more than one student on academic scholarships who "don't always perform up to standards and blames everyone else for their shortcomings". They are practically being paid to fail classes and blame the professors. It is time to call them all out publicly.

Thanks Matt for agreeing with me on how the Blue Banner is officially the place we can publicly attack students benefiting from student fees (either directly or indirectly), while remaining happily anonymous.

Matt

Wed Nov 4 2009 16:41

Lassi is (apparently) receiving a huge scholarship and is having most of his tuition paid for or something among those lines. That is why the letter was published. The author of the letter is questioning why Lassi is practically getting paid to play for UNCA when he doesn't always perform up to standards and blames everyone else for his shortcomings.

If your fellow chemistry students were being paid to attend UNCA and failing, then by all means, write a letter.

Jacob

Wed Nov 4 2009 13:13

"the writer of the letter criticized Hurskainen as an athlete playing in a program supported by $605 of his student fees this year, not as a fellow student"

I have zero doubts that my lab fees are supporting students in my chemistry lab. Some of those students are really bad at chemistry. By that logic I should be able to publicly criticize them in the Blue Banner. The approval of the letter clearly showed a complete lack of journalistic professionalism and fraternity on the part of the editors. In an age where news outlets have lost credibility due to bias and an unending search for controversy, this flare up seems to show that the problem starts with the lack of education of editors and journalists.

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Enter the characters in the image above:

log out