To the Editor: I write to correct the record in James Sawabini’s column entitled “A Mixed Debate” (4/6/07). James argues that the debate provided “shock value,” rather than substantive conversation. He and I can disagree if it’s warranted to ascertain valuable facts about the candidates—their academic background, their experience with the DC system, etc.—but he has no standing to attack the seriousness of the endeavor. First, let me note that all student listeners who approached WPAA personnel or me praised the very substance of our debates. I should remind him that ours was the first two-part debate series and that never before, at least during our tenure at Phillips Academy, were the issues handled as comprehensively or dispassionately or did the candidates themselves face real dilemmas: the anticipated Commons renovation, the rift between students and the administration, the on-campus disciplinary system and the initiatives proposed by the respective candidates. What is most concerning about James’s column is its lack of substance. I may have asked (in a brief two minutes) about candidates’ grades or to describe our Head of School, questions I concede, were less than consequential, but the remaining questions (in roughly fifty-five minutes) were on the aforesaid issues. Does James reveal this time distribution to his readers? No. More regrettable, James misrepresents the Head of School question. He claims that “I coerced the candidates into criticizing our Head of School.” That is simply a distortion of the truth. I encourage readers to listen to the archived debate to hear exactly what transpired. I suggested that the candidates speak freely—positively or critically—in addressing their attitude towards all subjects—including the administration and the Head of School. I never asked or framed any question leading the candidates to criticize Mrs. Chase. I have absolute respect for Barbara Landis Chase and feel that such a question, if asked, would be both unfair and inappropriate. James then quotes me completely out of context. I did state mid-thought that students “don’t want to hear flattering things alone.” But I made this comment—quite clearly—with respect to all questions, and based not on my own view, but on those of the listeners. As the paper’s editor in chief, James can and should set a better example—to provide an accurate context, rather than concealing essential facts. If James hadn’t written his column, I was planning myself to write on the joy of this election. Jon Adler, Teddy Collins and Joey Mensah were, by far, the most qualified and capable candidates in recent history (each one of them could have won in a typical year.) They campaigned with humility and grace, and I admire their dedication to serving our student body. James also ignored, I think, the most compelling question of the night, which asked each candidate to make a pledge that the least vote-getter (Joey, in this case) will serve in a high-ranking capacity in the elected administration. After all their effort and hard work, the candidates agreed that the third-place candidate deserves a place in the decision-making process. Unfortunately, James spoiled the fun. Sincerely, Alexander Heffner Editor’s Note: Regarding the Head of School question, the Editor concedes that he misunderstood Alexander. He apologizes for the error and thanks Alexander for his correction to this issue. The Editor otherwise stands by his points and encourages readers to read the original article on www.phillipian.net and listen to the debate at www.WPAA.com/debate.php. The Phillipian welcomes all letters to the Editor. We try to print all letters, but because of space limitations, we recommend brevity and conciseness. We reserve the right to edit all submitted letters to conform with print restraints and proper syntax. We will not publish any anonymous letters. Please submit letters by the Monday of each week to The Phillipian mailbox in G.W. or to The Phillipian newsroom in the basement of Morse Hall, or send an e-mail to phillipian@andover.edu.
