By Daniel Chick
In my time here at Georgetown (I’m a senior now—God, I feel old), I’ve seen the Back Page be the platform for several inflammatory things to be said.
Take, for example, a BP piece from last year written by former editor Allie Englert about the pitiful conditions of Knight Hall. The piece was written with tact, if also holding a significant amount of snark and cutting remarks that would put a razor’s edge to shame.
Take, also for example, the entirety of Perry Dixon’s portfolio as editor: tactful, witty and cutting. That is the spirit of The Back Page—to discuss and chew through the issues that Georgetown College faces with an intelligent, if not a tad bit facetious, tone.
Last week’s Back Page editorial contained none of the qualities that made its legacy so endearing and enduring. In fact, it was downright vicious. That’s where my umbrage lies—The Back Page has never been about viciousness.
It has been the ultimate, most recognizable home to the angst that every Georgetown College student feels from time to time, but housed in a playfully inflammatory tone.
Imagine with me, if you will, the stereotypical teapot effect. That high pitched squeal that makes you want to claw out your eardrums? That is the same purpose The Back Page serves, to alleviate the pressure so the thing doesn’t explode. Okay, yeah, the metaphor is a little off because reading The BP has only made me want to claw my eyes out a number of times.
Last week’s op-ed, however, managed to insult the notion of taking pride in one’s work. We have some of the nicest, most dedicated people working in the Caf who enjoy what they do because they get to see us and talk to us.
In fact, Mike, who works the hot line, is one of the nicest guys you’ll ever meet—if not a little timid. The writer insulted him and every other worker who dedicates their time day in and day out by generally haranguing “the Caf” as an entity.
Now, don’t get me wrong—I’m happy the writer gave voice to the pitiful condition of our meals on the weekend. Considering how much we pay (up front, mind you), the level of services returned on weekend meals is akin to paying someone to punch us collectively in the stomach, repeatedly, and thanking them for not hitting us in the groin.
It’s kind of a mind-numbingly absurd practice. But “the Caf” is not the entity we should be focusing on. Those workers are some of the best people around. Yes, we should be angry—at Sodexo. They make money hand over fist, charge rates akin to extortion and are ultimately in charge of what goes on here.
I certainly think it is awesome Collin brought the issue up in grand fashion. The first step is out of the way, and we all say things we may regret later. We know that the food brought to us sucks from time to time— let’s talk about it; let’s get angry about it. Let’s also have some tact, graciousness, and wit about it as well.