To the editor:

Opinion Editor Thomas Shattuck's ill-intentioned rant in Monday's the Hustler belongs in a fireplace, not a newspaper. How could you allow such sensational filth to be printed in your publication?

He attempted to respond wittily to students' opinions of, and often outrage over, the Hustler's decision to push 54 mug shots to the forefront of the campus' consciousness. Yet he only managed to stumble over his own bias and incompetence.

In less than 650 words, Shattuck accused half of Vanderbilt's student body of illiteracy, indicted "most of us" for spending our tuition money on alcohol and cocaine, expressed his desire to consume the ashes of students' dead mothers and threatened, in the case that readers were handicapped, to throw them down a flight of stairs. Actually, my apologies, the version printed didn't contain any mention of "blow," just the copy on InsideVandy. Apparently, the same editorial prowess that brought about that change found the statement, "I'd rather season my meal with your dead mother's ashes than respect you," well within the bounds of journalistic integrity.

I find it interesting that Shattuck, an editor who relies on readership for the survival of his position, would state "half this campus can't actually read" twice within a 125-word excerpt. Perhaps he's right, and we students flip immediately to the crossword puzzle, aware of such weakness and the dire need to improve our vocabulary. Or, more likely, the crossword is simply less puzzling than the tangle of words found within articles like Shattuck's.
The underlying sentiment in many of the comments on InsideVandy, the responses to the front-page mug shots Shattuck strove to refute, seemed to be one of betrayal. We students simply could not believe Vanderbilt's student newspaper would exploit the poor fortune of fellow undergraduates for a temporary revival of the ailing publication's readership. Shattuck's column only confirmed our worst fears: The Hustler is entirely out of touch with the student body it supposedly represents.

Shattuck's systematic degradation of student organizations fails to help matters. He claims the football team, a clear source of inspiration and camaraderie this year, stands as a legitimate reason for alumni to withhold donations from Vanderbilt. He similarly insults The Slant. As an editor of The Slant, Vanderbilt's humor and satire rag, I can state definitively that Shattuck's supreme lack of writing ability and off-color attempts at humor would find no place in our pages, and shouldn't in The Hustler.

In Monday's issue, Shattuck writes that he feels "mildly offended that no one called for (his) resignation," and apparently acts upon this resentment by providing us with reason to do exactly that. Where's the oversight? Where's the ethics? I understand that as editors, you work tirelessly to put out a publication reflective of the effort put in. Perhaps your efforts shouldn't be so misguided, intentionally or otherwise.

Charlie Kesslering
Sophomore
College of Arts and Science