Whitman Administration’s Email Peer Review Process

Megumi Rierson, Humor Writer

Much has been said regarding the chain of emails from Juli Dunn and Chuck Cleveland about the recent druggings on Whitman campus, and although disagreements exist on the nature of the administration’s involvement in the investigation, students have unanimously agreed that the emails sent out to keep the campus informed have been timely, informative and reassuring. The Wire has obtained a portion of the Socratic wonder that is the peer review process these emails undergo before they are sent to the student body.

First, examine the overall structure. Is it about two paragraphs too long? Is there a distinct narrative voice? Do you feel as though the disembodied spirit of Chuck Cleveland materializes in the empty spaces between the empty words? If the bulk of the text is not comprised of misleading fillers and emphatic statements of fact that exist as facts purely by virtue of Juli Dunn and Chuck Cleveland willing them to be so, it must be reworked. Ideally, readers will come away from the piece with a radically inaccurate understanding of events that reflect poorly upon the college, and that’s just not going to happen if you focus on trivial things like “truth” and “clarity.”

Second, is it clear what the intention and message of the email is? Fix that. It should be possible to draw at least 3 conflicting conclusions from the text. If there are sentences explicitly connecting events or providing any kind of credible information, they should be removed immediately in favor of loosely structured strings of words that provide less information than would have been gleaned from not reading the email in the first place. Sign your email with “sincerely” because dammit, you care!

Third, does it aggressively pat itself on the back? Readers should be left with a sense of self-satisfaction on the part of the Whitman administration without the administration taking any substantive action that would warrant such smugness. Ensure that there is some iteration of “our first priority is your safety.” If the email does not make a tangentially related and far too lengthy reference to Green Dot or upholding loosely defined community values, consider restructuring the email to include these essential pieces of information. If nothing else in the email is clear, make sure the priorities of Memorial 330 are.

***This article is purely satire and meant for the humor page