To the Editor,
Well, I must admit, I am both sad and confused. I have read former Swarthmorean associate editor Satya Nelms’ May 12 column at medium.com, “Why I Resigned From The Swarthmorean.” I have read The Swarthmorean publishers’ statement of May 13. I have read numerous commentaries from well-known local citizens in support of the resignations of Ms. Nelms and editor Rachel Pastan. And it seems that there is no clear picture.
Allow me to say that I am not supporting Ms. Nelms and Ms. Pastan as so many do (judging from public postings). I am not supporting the publishers. Based on what I have read, I do not feel I am in a position to judge.
Ms. Nelms writes of the many who have supported her work. She writes of many who expressed unhappiness with the number of topical articles. Of the publishers’ request to publish fewer socially charged articles. That the paper is meant to represent all of the community. That “fewer” articles means turning a blind eye to issues affecting subsets of our community.
And I read the publishers’ statement — what little it said about the incident — accepting that Ms. Nelms and Ms. Pastan wished to move on and stating that the publishers would continue to provide the best paper possible for Swarthmore. (For some definition of “best.”)
This is where I became confused. What was the discussion? Is there only one acceptable mix? Are “fewer” and “none” synonymous? Are a few loud voices directing the community?
What’s more, are these resignations — along with the threats by members of BOTH communities (the “too many” and “not too many” cohorts) to cancel their subscriptions — appropriate? Is this an example of the fragmentation of our society, in the same way that Republicans and Democrats don’t speak with each other? Is this Swarthmore’s future?
I have a fear. The “too many” group cancels. The “we support Rachel and Satya” group cancels. The Swarthmorean loses significant subscription revenue and ceases publication. I believe we may be that close. We all win by making our point, and we all lose.
Instead, I call on Ms. Nelms and Ms. Pastan to return. For the publishers to invite them back. I call on the “too many” and “supporter” groups to resume their subscriptions. I call on them to meet (coffee outside Hobbs, anyone? Breakfast at Vicky’s Place?), to write, to gather, and to discuss. To accept and to compromise. To move forward together. That’s what we do here.
Steve Platt
Swarthmore
30-plus-year Swarthmorean subscriber
