To the editor:

I am intrigued by the new editorial policy of The Phoenix. The editors state that they "will no longer list the names of editors who support our editorials" because while "the institution's voice must be expressed through the work of individuals, this voice is not merely the voice of a large number of specific individuals."

Just what does the concept "institution's voice" refer to in reality? The term is metaphorical, and implies that an institution has not only a voice, but some sort of "collective consciousness," set of values. Is this institution alive? I thought that only individuals had the capacity to think and voice their own views. Am I naive in thinking this way?

The new editorial policy continues: "While editorials will not necessarily reflect the views of any individual staff member, the do (and should) reflect views with which the staff as a whole is not at odds." I take the above to mean that nobody on The Phoenix staff will agree with the main idea of future editorials--nor will they disagree.

How can this be? Assuming the statements in the editorials are semantically sound, i.e., they have meaning, then in order for a contributor to neither agree nor disagree with them, he must hold no opinions. The other possibility is that the writers do have opinions, but they do not write them, and instead write editorials containing absolutely meaningless combinations of words that make no claim about reality.

I would like the editors to answer these questions, preferably in signed missives. I would think they would not agree with anything they write in an unsigned reply to this letter. Or would they?

Brian Schwartz '97