Letter Writer: Bailey Wrongly Diverts Fear

I usually don't respond to letters to the editor referencing me. I want people to have their say, especially when they disagree with me. But I am going to respond to the one that ran in this morning's paper, titled "Bailey Wrongly Diverts Fear."

It completely distorts who I am, what I stand for, the class discussion I referenced and the column to which he was referring, "Freedom Conquers Our Fear."

One, the class is about journalism, not politics, though we discuss politics through the lens of how best to think through complicated issues then present them properly in news articles and opinion pieces.

The purpose of the discussion that day was to force students to put themselves in the shoes of those who think differently, no matter if they were liberal, conservative or a 16-year-old sexual assault victim who had to attend the same school for a year as her attacker. I told them the most important thing about this business -- or any business, for that matter -- is the ability to think deeply, to see the world in 360 degrees. I told them that if their heads don't hurt on a weekly basis -- from grappling with a complex issue they'd rather push off as simple -- then they are not doing their jobs well. The only agenda I push is trying to get them to improve their craft. Period. I push and I prod, no matter the issue. On that particular day, I went around the classroom and asked each student what they thought about the government takeover of the student loan business, or if it was even proper to call it a takeover. If a student who responded thought the law was a good step, I asked him to name a potential pitfall of such a change. If a student said he thought the law was bad, I asked him to name what potential good could come of it. Why? Because I want them to consider the entire issue -- from multiple sides and all angles -- before forming an opinion, or even before they attempt to write a straight-news story about it. It's one way to overcome personal biases and to write with more authority. It was not some "left-wing radical" attempt to force my views on students -- views I declined to share during the class.

And he was factually inaccurate when he suggested that the media -- he named only Katie Courie -- refused to cover the big Tea Party event on April 15, prompting him to say journalism is dead, just as he was factually inaccurate when he said I denigrated the Tea Party. Apparently challenging the Tea Party in any way means you are automatically deeming it. Who's playing the victim card now?

My overall point of the column: This country has gone through worse, had to make tougher choices and stared down fear every time -- as we must this time -- which is what makes us great. How that became a radical left-wing message is beyond me.

The purpose of the discussion that day was to force students to put themselves in the shoes of those who think differently, no matter if they were liberal, conservative or a 16-year-old sexual assault victim who had to attend the same school for a year as her attacker. I told them the most important thing about this business -- or any business, for that matter -- is the ability to think deeply, to see the world in 360 degrees. I told them that if their heads don't hurt on a weekly basis -- from grappling with a complex issue they'd rather push off as simple -- then they are not doing their jobs well. The only agenda I push is trying to get them to improve their craft. Period. I push and I prod, no matter the issue. On that particular day, I went around the classroom and asked each student what they thought about the government takeover of the student loan business, or if it was even proper to call it a takeover. If a student who responded thought the law was a good step, I asked him to name a potential pitfall of such a change. If a student said he thought the law was bad, I asked him to name what potential good could come of it. Why? Because I want them to consider the entire issue -- from multiple sides and all angles -- before forming an opinion, or even before they attempt to write a straight-news story about it. It's one way to overcome personal biases and to write with more authority. It was not some "left-wing radical" attempt to force my views on students -- views I declined to share during the class.

And he was factually inaccurate when he suggested that the media -- he named only Katie Courie -- refused to cover the big Tea Party event on April 15, prompting him to say journalism is dead, just as he was factually inaccurate when he said I denigrated the Tea Party. Apparently challenging the Tea Party in any way means you are automatically deeming it. Who's playing the victim card now?

My overall point of the column: This country has gone through worse, had to make tougher choices and stared down fear every time -- as we must this time -- which is what makes us great. How that became a radical left-wing message is beyond me.