| OCR Text |
Show Editorial illogical Editor: This is in response to the "Comment" of April 22, 1987. I am not concerned with the Manila principal's decision or with whatever infringements there may -- or may not - be regarding the freedom of expression. The article waj confused and, in my opinion, quite poorly written. Three brief points: first, you are correct in stating that the public complaint may or may not have merit, and is not the issue; second, there are, of course, two sides of the story which the parents involved seem to have forgotten: third, and most important, is the fact that perhaps they were silenced out of a desire to protect them. If they (the disgruntled parents) were about to launch a personal attack on the principal, such an attack would amount to slander. Again, there are two sides to this story (though I have no interest one way or the other), but the editorial has missed the point. If 1 understand un-derstand the article, which was in itself rather difficult to follow, the parents were silenced in a meeting purported to be an "open meeting"' - - whatever that is supposed to imply. A discussion which was more an attack on the individual than on the criteria for the decision, should have been blocked by the board. No. ' the public (or a very small portion ' of it) was not stifled at all, on the contrary, an emotional, slanderous outburst was avoided. As mentioned agove, the issues really are not of concern to me. What was disappointing was the poorly written editorial. It seemed nothing more than an attempt to make the affair into a constitutional issue: written, unfortunately, without focus and including non-related non-related issues in a confused manner. man-ner. -Stev'n Uule Ani('t i ' Fork |
