I was told that the principal had used her executive power to chop up my article into bits that didn’t contain the harassing, offensive points that it originally owned. I was sad, very very sad. It’s tough for someone with a weak emotional structure to be rejected and told I’m harassing to younger people. So, the advisors went to the bargaining table, nothing changed. Therefore we revised, redid, and reedited the entire article and pumped out a version that had the heart and soul cut out of it, but we put it in the paper anyway. The version that came out in the last edition didn’t have the same edge that the original copy had. Now I have respect for people who have the courage to challenge the freedom of press (that’d be me).
Bring it on. I’m not afraid of having my paper rejected. I take it as a compliment. If you want to try to challenge me, I will have the last word.
I think of myself as an Epicurean. That means I don’t believe in emotions, but it also means I’m perverted. Anyway, someone without emotions has no conscience, without a conscience you are free of convictions. Being free of conviction means I cannot be offended. My anger is under my control, I choose not anger myself with the people who are angered with me. I divert my anger to people who cannot control themselves. That basically means that if your mad at me, and you try to make me angry it won’t work.
For the last year of writing this column it has been more or less a joke. It was designed to make people chuckle a little. Now, this year I was told by the staff that the offender had no real point, just humor. So I decided for my first piece I would take a controversial subject, such as eroding senior privileges, and put my own point of view down and the point of view from many of the other seniors. I realize that I didn’t look at it from everyone’s point of view. That, I believe, was a mistake on my behalf. This is a subject that has seriously infuriated me and I took it out in a public piece. I believe there will be more people looking to my column, since I have written a controversial piece. I believe the problem is my humor with satire, and my strong cynicism. This column isn’t designed for the people who are quick to take a defensive stance, but I take it as a compliment when I do actually offend. It gives me a lot of pride that my column is actually living up to its name(the public offender).
I’m not the only columnist who is taking a stand to offend. There is the local Harley Sundown who is bashing on caucasians and saying that, “Women should stay in traditional roles of cutting fish and preparing meat, that men don’t do “women’s” work, that feminism is “Baloney”. I’m sure he was trying to tick people off. It’s called stirring the pot. It’s getting a rise out of people in any sort of way. At least the brains are moving. Now I’m hoping that I will anger people in the future. The principal and my advisors do have the power to cut certain content. Its called power of prior review, therefore they can remove any subject that might be perceived as harassing to someone or hindering the educational process or conflicting with the schools stated educational pedagogy. So when you feel a little pressured, or even a little shut in, don’t be surprised, that’s what I’m trying to do. I appreciate the staff who came forward and told me that they didn’t agree with some of my subjects. Of course a lot of staff members won’t understand. Just let us know with letters to the editor. It lets me know that I’m doing my part. It means that I am reemphasizing problems that might be able to go away if we continue to press against it. I’m sure that if enough intelligent well rounded students got together and really tried and had good ideas that include curricular and extracurricular activities and doing something worthwhile with our time. We could maybe have one or two free periods. That would be nice, but when you read my column and feel a tid-bit annoyed or angered look up at the title and remember I’m trying to do that.