Menu CATEGORIES

Connect with us

CATEGORIES Menu
All Articles

Our First Letter To The Editor: An Anonymous Response to “Yeehaw Columbia”

While Bwog does not usually publish posts in the op-ed format, we recently received an unsolicited email attaching a Letter to the Editor, in PDF format, that responded passionately to our satirical post, “Yeehaw Columbia.” Inspired by another certain student newspaper, which has garnered attention for its very tactful, thought-provoking, and extremely perceptive op-eds, we decided to try our hand at the form too. Why the heck not! Here is the submission in full.

Yeehaw Prejudice – Scribd by Bwog on Scribd

Write a comment

Your email address will not be published.

 

12 Comments

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous your op ed 1) must be bad and 2) cite exhaustively

    5
    11
  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous so bwog is posting op-eds now… but only if they’re bad (and cite sources)?

    5
    13
  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous im personally a fan of this new bad op-ed policy

    7
    10
  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Is this just someone’s UW P4?

    23
    1
    1. Anonymous says:

      @Anonymous yes

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous more interesting than 75% of the content on this site

    20
    6
  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous hey this is facts tho

    9
    3
    1. Anonymous says:

      @Anonymous but does it literally apply to an article satirizing white southern fratty colleges made by someone who is southern and went to one of them?? like the point is valid in general but it was weird that they targeted this post…and paper is horribly written imo

      7
      1
  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous feel like its important to know the author of the original op-ed is southern lol

    5
    1
  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Start posting Columbia Confessions op-eds tbh

    3
    2
  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous The surface-level research and analysis that went into this obvious UW P4 are both grossly negligent and symptomatic of a larger issue. While it is true that Southern stereotypes can contribute to racial stereotypes and allow for white northerners to think that they do not contribute to white supremacy, the original “Yeehaw Columbia” had nothing to do with that. As said below, the author of the original article is a Southerner who wrote a satirical piece about the toxic, white, fratty nature of a lot of large Southern party schools (although those traits do not just apply to Southern schools. Example: Penn State). And while it’s valid to critique portrayals of the South that contribute to the harmful idea that only the South is racist/bigoted and that Southerners are fat and lazy (often specifically targeting Black Southerners), that doesn’t apply in this circumstance, and rather opens up for debate a larger issue at Columbia and every college in America: fake woke white students who do anything for political clout. This concept is becoming more and more apparent as some students barely engage in political activism or campaigns at all but still choose to put it on their resume. They don’t try and make a true difference. They’re focused on the benefits they can personally reap rather than the benefits that true social activism can create for marginalized communities. This article is a perfect example of that. Surface level research, a works cited page that is somehow longer than the article itself, the grasping of straws in an attempt to make headlines, and the utilization of trigger words that’ll make them seem educated. There’s nothing wrong with critiquing media or portrayals that you deem unworthy. But to make this specific article the target of your weird cry for political validation just makes it obvious that whoever this author is…is part of the privileged and elitist sect they seem to hate so much. They represent the larger issue in privileged identities taking the front seat in a conversation that just doesn’t apply to them. I wish this response was critical of northern white elitism at Columbia in general, using actual articles and stats to back it up. But it’s not. It’s someone trying to get that “politically woke” title on their Linkedin so when they end up working for Goldman Sacs, they can pretend that they’re not perpetuating the same elitist issues that they are so quick to critique when it can be beneficial to them.

    7
    5
  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous the worst part about this P4 is that the author uses over half of the sources in a completely unrelated series of three sentences for which no context is given… honey no one’s giving you a gold star for a long works cited list on a glorified “look how woke I am” complaint

    2
    4
  • Have Your Say

    What should you actually Venmo people for?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    Recent Comments

    When both parties are drunk or high, why are only males held accountable for their actions while women get a (read more)
    “We Have Failed Them”: Building A World Of Better Sexual Citizens
    January 27, 2020
    Thank you Isabel! This is hopefully a moment in history and this is a great write up! (read more)
    “We Have Failed Them”: Building A World Of Better Sexual Citizens
    January 27, 2020
    this is the funniest bwog article i have ever read, possibly ever (read more)
    I Was The Cockroach That Margaret Vandenburg Kicked Out Of Class And Honestly, What The Fuck
    January 26, 2020
    Columbia’s campus is so beautiful. (read more)
    Best Places On Campus To Ache
    January 26, 2020

    Comment Policy

    The purpose of Bwog’s comment section is to facilitate honest and open discussion between members of the Columbia community. We encourage commenters to take advantage of—without abusing—the opportunity to engage in anonymous critical dialogue with other community members. A comment may be moderated if it contains:
    • A slur—defined as a pejorative derogatory phrase—based on ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, or spiritual belief
    • Hate speech
    • Unauthorized use of a person’s identity
    • Personal information about an individual
    • Baseless personal attacks on specific individuals
    • Spam or self-promotion
    • Copyright infringement
    • Libel