Why I Wrote “Peter Uvin: Masturbator?”

Screen shot 2014-02-24 at 8.03.49 PM

(deputymetroeditor)– In the time since I posted “Peter Uvin, Masturbator?” on this website, I have had several conversations about the article and the controversy it provoked. I published the article because the incident it described was a newsworthy story. However, I should have taken a different approach in doing so. Making clear why I thought this story was important and highlighting the issues that it raised would have encouraged a more productive discussion about the issues behind the story instead of the wild speculation about my supposed anti-masturbation agenda that occurred in its place. Ironically, my attempt to leave my personal opinions out of the story probably created more controversy than if I had included them in the article.

I had chosen to write the article in (what I thought was) an “objective and unbiased” tone because I knew that masturbation is a controversial subject at the College. I wanted to separate the story from my personal views on jerkin’ the gherkin because I thought doing so would benefit discussion on the real issue behind the story—the regulative vacuum in which an administrator flogging the dolphin exists—rather than my own beliefs about the masturbation question, especially since I don’t have a particularly strong opinion on the matter. I purposefully attempted to include various administrators’ side of the story and emailed them a partial draft to ensure that they thought I was being accurate and fair, and I refrained from any editorializing in the article (in contrast to previous investigative pieces I have written for this site). Throughout the whole process, I made every effort to produce a balanced narrative that included a range of perspectives on the incident.

This strategy obviously failed. Judging by the comments, a significant number of students and alumni believe that I am either an anti-five knuckle shuffle fanatic with a large axe to grind or a sordid trader in salacious gossip. Neither description fits reality, but this ill-founded conjecture ultimately distracted people from my real purpose in writing this story. This was in some ways my fault—by not stating explicitly why I wrote this article, I left people guessing about what I really thought about charming the snake instead of debating the issues I hoped to raise.

To be explicit about my “agenda” in writing this article, I think that the lack of oversight of administrators roping the pony creates circumstances—such as the one discussed in the article—in which the College is unable to respond to potentially groundbreaking student inquiry in a timely fashion. Additionally, I think there has been an unjustified taboo on discussing the role of playing pocket pool in creating a campus culture in which waiting around for email responses occurs on a far too frequent basis; holding the sausage hostage obviously isn’t the root of all evil, but the regulative vacuum in which it exists necessarily begets inconvenient situations. The response to this doesn’t have to be the outright banning of going to the palm prom, but we have to figure out how to address this problem if we want to make real progress towards a better campus community.

I should also note that my purpose in writing this article was never to attack Peter Uvin or the other administrators involved. While I think that the decision to not respond to my email for almost two hours failed to account for the potential effects that it could have had, the administrators involved appear to have taken precautions to ensure that they check their inboxes before engaging in some hand to glans combat in the future. Their actions, however, highlighted the problem I discussed above—what if they hadn’t taken those precautions?

To make a long story short, I made one mistake by not being explicit about my reasons for writing the article, and I made another by not being upfront about the fact that I like applying the hand brake as much as the next guy. For those I apologize, but I do not in any way regret publishing the article. This incident highlighted a gap in the College’s ability to aid its students in criticizing its own decisions, and it showed that the unregulated nature of fiddling the flesh flute can create potentially dangerous situations in which the students cannot meet their deadlines. Those reasons alone made it worth publishing.

Advertisements

THE MUCK-RAKE INVESTIGATES: Peter Uvin, Masturbator?

Screen shot 2014-02-23 at 9.03.07 PM

(deputymetroeditor)– At 9:56pm on Thursday, February 20, I emailed Provost Peter Uvin a list of questions in hopes that his answers would help me write an article for an unfunded, highly controversial online student publication.

At 11:35pm, I received an email back. What was Uvin doing in the meantime?

Rather than jump to the obvious conclusion on my own, I decided to send the following email to several Amherst College administrators, including President Martin, the next afternoon:

“Dear [administrator],

Last night, I emailed Peter Uvin a list of questions related to a piece I am writing for a student publication. It took him nearly two hours to respond. I was hoping you could inform me as to whether or not he masturbated during that time period.

Thanks,

deputymetroeditor”

At the time of this writing, not one has responded. Why? Are they protecting the Provost?

Are they all masturbating at this very moment?

It’s quite possible. A 1993 study of the masturbatory habits of adult-aged Americans concluded “most… Americans over the age of 30… have… [masturbated].” Though their actions and decisions frequently suggest otherwise, the administrators of the College are indeed American adults. [ed. note: Peter Uvin is of unknown national/planetary origin]. Therefore, it is very likely that one or more College administrators is masturbating as you read this.

Neither are student leaders immune from this plague upon our institution. AAS President George Tepe ’14, whose association with masturbation was hotly debated during his campaign, also refused to comment on the matter at hand.

If you’re anything like me, the thought of all this is repulsive: leaders in our community, masturbating without approval of the student body while the College burns to the ground. There can be no justice while serial masturbators are allowed to run this institution and dominate the narrative; there can be no peace of mind while our emails remain unanswered.

TD Moves Into On-Campus House

Screen shot 2013-11-16 at 4.08.06 PMAMHERST, Ma. – Citing the need for “a fresh start”, the fraternity formerly known as TD took up residence in the Little Red Schoolhouse last week. While the brothers are still waiting to officially hear back from the International Little Red Schoolhouse Organization on the status of their charter, they’ve already adopted the new name “Little Red Frat”. One LRF brother, who wished to remain anonymous, reported, “The house is sick nasty. Morning circle time has been a big success so far, and the theme-based curriculum that emphasizes the four areas of childhood development is going to be a huge asset come Rush Week.” The only problem the brothers have encountered so far has been public urination on Friday and Saturday nights. “It’s just like people peeing on our house? Just really disrespectful behavior, not okay bro.”