A Letter from an Editor: Controversy Who?

A+Letter+from+an+Editor%3A+Controversy+Who%3F

I have written for the Rampage for three years now, and full disclosure, I’ve only actually read the paper once or twice. Don’t get me wrong — I’ve put in my time as a writer. I dutifully emailed teachers for comments, made up quotes from my friends, and ended up hunched over my computer screen two hours before the submission deadline, trying to crank out an article about whatever the previous week’s assembly had taught me. I never had to try too much because I knew nobody was reading it; writing for the Rampage was like shouting into the void, albeit a void that was printed monthly and carefully scrutinized by the administration. Yet, in junior year, a mixture of ambition and hubris compelled me to apply to be editor of the paper, so here I am. (Hineni, in proper Ramaz terms.)

Besides for having the majority of my classes with at least one of my two fellow editors-in-chief, I also work in conjunction with them in the leadership of other clubs. Natalie is the senior editor of Parallax, and I her junior; Harry and I are co-captains of the Debate Team.

We know each other fairly well by now, well enough that we were able to agree on one cohesive, coherent vision for the paper: a more controversial Rampage. A more interesting Rampage. A Rampage students would pass in the library and actually want to read.

Now, in my rather shameless manner, I’ve spoken to members of the administration about this goal. The result was a debate over the word “controversy;” the administrator I spoke to pointed out that its connotation (angry, intolerant complaints) is different than its denotation, “debateable” or “giving rise to opinions on both sides.” So let me be explicitly clear here: this paper should not – and will not – be a twelve-page monthly attack on the school, administration, and faculty. Still don’t get it? I. Do. Not. Want. An. Anti. Ramaz. Rampage. That being said, I think it’s extraordinarily important to have freedom of the press. Any student who wants to write an article which criticizes any of the aforementioned groups should be allowed to without fear of retribution or an early-morning request for a meeting from the administration (which may or may not have happened to me before.)

As far as I can tell, and I’m quite certain that I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong, the school wants a Rampage that “raises questions.” I don’t disagree. Ask any of my teachers; I ask more questions than what should be reasonably be expected of one student per class period. So the idea of printing 12 pages of questions every month sounds pretty appealing to me. That being said, it’s simply not a feasible idea in that it requires more time, dedication, and research than can be expected from our poor, overworked writers if we assume they wish to simultaneously maintain decent GPAs. So let’s work on the assumption that at least 2-3 articles per issue will be long, in-depth, deep “questions” about life on 60 E 78th street, and maybe even life in general, depending on how existential I’m feeling. That leaves at least another twenty articles open to interpretation, and there’s only so many times a student is willing to read “Grade-wide trip to museum” or “Interview with [insert teacher’s name].” I believe that, sometimes, we should have articles which merely present the facts and opinions, negative or positive, about Ramaz. Yet every time we submit an article which could even be perceived as being critical of the school, we expect the email response: this is too broad, or this is purely negative and doesn’t ask any questions. Well, we can’t ask questions every time, and if we’re not asking questions, the article is either going to have a negative slant, a positive slant, or be so utterly objective that it’s just plain boring. I also refuse to let the Rampage devolve into a newspaper with piece after piece endorsing the every move of the administration. What a great assembly! The school lunch is better than ever! What’s “college pressure”? Frankly, when the articles were all either neutral or pro-Ramaz, we never used to hear objections that they weren’t raising enough questions. So the same way we were once able to get away with a positively keeled Rampage, we should now be allowed to get away with at least some critical articles. Again, I’m not asking that the entire paper become the AntiRa. But once in a while, I should be allowed to say that I want the old caterers back.