St. Ignatius's The Eye: Volume LXXIX Number II

Accurate and precise information is as necessary to a reporter as it is to an administrator. When taking measures against a student whose remarks have been labeled as “inoffensive,” should an administration not first be aware of what the remarks were? Should the student not have a chance to defend himself? Logic dictates that absolutely he should, or else risk the fate of a mute in front of a military tribunal. Every oppressed man deserves a voice. Thus is justice. But when ideals of justice are not upheld, a sort of quasi-tyranny bleeds from the pore of every wretched creature called “intolerance.”
    Misinformed, the administration acted without considering the intentions of the student involved. This situation is merely a microcosm of all intelligence failures and exercises of power. How does this happen? Who acted upon this biased information the slant of which had been decided based on the response rather than context?
    I am, of course, referring to the case of Brian Gallagher of the class of 2008. For those unaware of the circumstances regarding the extreme injustice, Brian was in the running for Freshman Class President of Student Senate. During his speech to the freshman class, Brian declared that: “freshman need more mixers…because the only people in my life right now are my mom and Mr. Fujimoto’s intern.” The administration interpreted Brian’s comment, which invoked Mr. Fujimoto’s intern to be a demeaning assault on women. Brian was swiftly disqualified from the race and banished from Student Senate, despite winning the clear majority of the votes; threatened with indefinite jug; and forced to write a letter of apology.
    This action of “punishment” by the administration must not stand. Rather, it must be quickly undone for the sake of the credibility of the school.
    Perhaps I am simply naïve in my fourth year as a student at St. Ignatius, or perhaps I assume too much, but I am absolutely incredulous that a student would speak about his mother and on the same breath utter a remark debauching women. No, such a belief is the interpretation of those unwilling to accept the fact that although Brian’s comment may or may not have been out of line or unnecessary, it was not demeaning towards women, in any way. Brian’s comment, in context, invoked the name of a female faculty member as an allencompassing manifestation of all of the women faculty members at St. Ignatius High School. He used her image to state that due to the all-male foundation of the institution, the only females he sees on a regular basis are those of his family (such as his mother) and those who he has for class (such as women faculty). I remember how it was freshman year, and this is absolutely an accurate portrayal for someone torn from his familiar bearings—a coeducational grade school. He was thrust into the throes of unfamiliarity— thrown into an all male institution. The single sex nature of our school was for many of us, the premise upon which many of our grade school peers based their humor. Brian simply appealed to these memories in his speech— the crowd understood that and responded.
    Had said faculty member called for action against Brian upon taking offense at his quip, a letter of apology would have been in order. However, she made no such request, nor was she even offended at the comment, which was meant to portray his genuinely jocular personality. Sophomoric at best, but a joke nonetheless.
    This is a case of the administration acting single-handedly, at the extreme expense of one of its students. Already his reputation tarnished, Brian cannot fulfill the office he was justly elected to, due to the chagrin of the faculty after their brains registered a perversely intentioned, pejorative version of Brian’s speech within their minds. No student, no human being, deserves to be judged without an opportunity for representation. Where does the administrations pseudo-Enlightened and misguided defense for such a blatantly erroneous castigation lie?
    I will not stand for such foolishness. I will not allow a fellow student of mine, one who will, years after my departing, represent the reputation of this school, to be exploited. Through theology class every student has or will learn of our obligation to defend the weak and oppressed.
    At some point, man’s ideology drives him to break free from the umbilical cord tethering him to the remnants of his infantile nature, of his need to lean upon the hand feeding him. We use the knowledge we have acquired through the course of our lives and apply it to the exterior world. At St. Ignatius, we learned of conscience, and we learned of justice. Conscience is the greatest judge of right and wrong, and my “conscience,” if I am willing to concede that such an essence exists, tells me that Brian has committed no evil.
    The letter of apology should not occur from the bottom, from the one in servitude, from the one who has been mistreated: from Brian. It should flow, altruistically, from the heart and hands of the oppressor, granting its victim restored honour and dignity. Any formal apology in this situation need come from the administration. Brian won the election. He committed no ill. He should be granted the right to serve his school in the manner he was elected to serve, that he was selected to serve, Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.
    To the administration, I beg of thee: accept your blame, Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam. Accept your blame or choose to exercise what Ambrose Bierce defined as “prejudice with a halo”: hypocrisy.