Extinguishing Misleading Allegations
In response to the ‘Igniting a Call to Action’ editorial allow me to clarify the biased and unprofessional allegations that were directed at myself and the Student Senate. Firstly, and most importantly, my words as printed in the editorial were taken absurdly and inexpertly out of context, as is apparent by the lack of complete sentences provided by the author. Though the objective of an editorial is to argue an opinion, the author violates one of the most critical principles of journalism by conveniently altering the words of the interviewee (myself) to serve his agenda. Secondly, and rather ironically, the author acknowledges that smoking is detrimental to one’s health and yet he quickly throws this fact aside in favor of a factually unsound tirade showcasing his evidently unfavorable opinion of the student representatives.
In reality, I was not at liberty to speak for the Student Senate or the student body at large given that we had not yet held a meeting this semester and hence found it my duty to speak according to my own judgment on the matter. Yes, student representatives have an obligation to defend the rights of students and in this instance, the health of our student body takes far greater precedence than the convenience of those with a deleterious addiction. Take a moment to examine the article’s assertion that the decision to eliminate many of the smoking sections is “unethical” and “shady”. First, how can one argue that protecting the health of the student body is unethical? Though it takes more effort on the part of smokers to locate an appropriate smoking area this relatively minimal amount of effort ensures the health and well being of students, faculty and staff alike on campus. Secondly, it suffices to say that the adjective ‘shady’ is misused in this context, and is clearly a product of the author’s own frustrated attempt to misconstrue the intentions of the Health and Wellness Center, the security department, facilities and V.P of Business Services Joe Sullivan. It is false that I speak for only non-smokers; even those who are initially complaining about the changes can recognize the truth in that their habits are harmful to their peers. Lastly, in regard to the insinuation that I discriminate against smokers and am thus a hypocritical student representative, allow me to submit that the author himself clearly discriminates against my age in his comments. The fact that I “can’t even buy a pack yet” is completely irrelevant to this discussion and is an obvious attempt to discredit my character and legitimacy as Student Senate President. In addition, I would like to invite the person responsible for the signs baring the message “Impeach Emily Harrington Now! Advocacy for Smokers Rights!” to address their concerns directly to myself and not in the form of ludicrous statements made visible to the student body. Lastly, I encourage students to have a positive outlook on the new smoking regulations, in that they are protecting the health of our campus. At the end of the day, the well being of each and every student on this campus comes first, and we could all do each other a service by making this our priority.

-Emily Harrington
Student Senate President

*Editor’s note:
Harrington’s letter to the editor was not edited or manipulated in any way. In her statement to The Channels, Harrington wrote that “no editing is necessary.” We agreed to publish the letter verbatim.