As members of the Pacer staff, we feel it is our “duty” to inform the campus on some of the issues recently questioned.

Lately, many people have asking questions about the Pacer’s “beef” with the SGA elections. Of course, if you read the coverage online, you should have a pretty good idea of what it was about. But, like always, there seemed to be a few technicalities that struck a cord with many of us on staff. The title of the article was “Pacer challenges election results.” This was a letter from our executive editor, not an article composed by the whole staff.

Personally, the issues questioned by our editor were ONLY questioned by him and a few of his close friends. We say this because many (almost all) of the other staff members had a part or a say in the challenge that was issued. We do not believe it is fair for the campus to think that the staff as a whole feels a certain way just because the executive editor does. We are all individuals with our own personal views and opinions about the election.

We believe that SGA handled the election process properly. We understand that some miscommunication could have existed, but they should not have penalized for that in any way. We think that the challenge laid upon the table was stupid and unnecessary.

It is in our opinion that the challenge was based upon a biased opinion because of a HUGE conflict of interest. Is it not “fishy” to some of you that the people on staff who protested are in the same fraternity as one of the new senators? We do.

We are giving you our opinion on this topic because we do not feel that one person should speak for all of us on staff.

We both feel that it is necessary for every voice to be heard, not just one. So, we ask for the students to not think that the whole staff was contesting this issue.

As we discuss this, the April Fools’ edition comes to mind as well. Many students, faculty and staff have informed us that the April Fools’ edition was very untasteful and offensive to them. Yes, it was a joke. But once again, it did not reflect the whole staff.

We may have had an opportunity to work on the edition, but as you can see, our opinions are not considered in many things.

So, staying in the Pacer office until the wee hours of the morning to produce the April Fools’ edition would have been a waste of most of our time. Only a few members produced the April Fools’ edition. Once again, we ask you, is it a coincidence that those same people were the ones who issued a challenge without consulting the staff? We think not.

Only one more issue to rave about. On the discussion board on our online edition, there is a poll question asking “Is UTM being taken over by African-American issues?” We think that this poll question is appalling and like the challenge, unnecessary. This is just another example of one person doing something on their own. Please note that we think this is a very ignorant question, and although we know prejudices do exist, they should not be displayed as a staff view or question.

So, in case anyone has any doubt or anything to say about the executive editor “speaking” for the staff as a whole (or any other issue), we ask that you all refer to the Pacer’s mission statement on page two of the paper. “Opinions expressed in personal columns are those of the writers and may not reflect the opinions of the staff as a whole.” So, as you can see, the Pacer staff didn’t challenge SGA elections, only those who refuted the election process did.

Tan-tra Terrell is a senior Communications/Marketing major from Memphis. Rebecca Paschall is a senior Communications major from Rutherford.