I was reading your editorial in the November 5 paper about the Deantrious Mitchell issue and I take it you were trying to be satirical because I fell off my chair laughing.

Are the authors of that opinion piece all on heavy valium or were you all doing bong hits to come up with that mushy banal tripe?

It is sad how patronizing this paper has become.

Were you expecting a riot over the fact that Mitchell lied about his attack? What was up with the feel-good vapid talk?

Are you concerned that the student body is just all nervous, tension-ridden idiots who need your supreme opinion on this lied attack?

I am glad you find the paper a convenient vehicle to gush banality.

I don’t think I was the only one out there who thought this assault sounded fishy from the start.

The DPS was not giving out information on the details of the attack and everyone was crying out it was a racially motivated attack.

I doubt that your paper would be so nice and understanding if Mitchell was white and lied about being beat up by black students.

What is disturbing is how much the September 29th Movement wants to use any so-called racism to further their goal to change the name of Catt Hall.

Personally, I wish it would have stayed Old Botany. It is a dead issue and they could move on to more important things.

Name-calling and increasing racial tensions on campus by villifying may make good copy but does not make it adhering to the rest of the student body.

Mark Schulka

Graduate student

Business