My column last week condemning the anti-vaccine movement drew by far the most feedback for any of my columns this semester.
Several readers from both sides of the debate responded, either with a short message of approval or a lengthier attack against the pharmaceutical industry and my own ignorance.
Among these messages, one comment stood out to me: “This is a ridiculous article posted by a person that knows nothing about vaccines or autism. I have been studying this for 10 years. That would have made the author of this article a real child,” wrote one commenter, Maurine Meleck.
The first part of this comment didn’t really bother me, because I know I have quite a bit of knowledge about vaccines and autism. But the second sentence gave me pause.
In the past semester, my fellow columnists and I have received a handful of these criticisms, which I describe as the “you are young so your argument is invalid” fallacy.
It always surprises me when this is a reader’s go-to criticism.
This is a college newspaper written and created by college students. We are criticized for writing about amusing but ultimately unimportant topics. But if we weigh in on important issues in our society we are apparently overstepping our boundaries.
I don’t understand how someone could read a column in a college newspaper and then be offended when they realize a college student wrote it.
Just pick up The Advocate or The New York Times if you want your opinions from middle-aged professional writers.
But if you pick up The Daily Reveille, expect “children” to have written it.
These readers believe our age is a weakness, but I believe our youth and inexperience make college newspapers unique among the media.
The opinion staff this semester was full of first-timers, myself included, who had never experienced the backlash or praise associated with controversial subjects.
We are young and often inept, but in a dialogue dominated by entrenched pundits and politicians, there is something to be said for the value of an inexperienced, and relatively uncynical, voice on the issues.
College newspapers are great not in spite of the limitations of their writers, but because of them.
Most importantly, college newspapers succeed in an area where many traditional aspects of college fail: educating both readers and writers.
I can honestly say a semester of writing for The Daily Reveille has taught me more than three semesters of college English courses ever could.
Writing something every week is far more English education than I can ever hope to receive following my engineering flow chart, but the feedback I get from readers teaches me more than anything else.
Opinion writers thrive on reader feedback. We rely on our readers to tell us when they enjoyed something we wrote, but more importantly to expose the flaws in our arguments and offer suggestions to improve those weaknesses or further our education and possibly change our opinions.
Unfortunately, the previous comment completely fails at these goals.
When the only criticism a commenter can make of an article filled with scientific evidence and arguments is the author is too young to be talking about the issue, I know he or she doesn’t have a case.
Criticism is a wonderful invention and can educate both the creator and reader by locating logical inconsistencies and other failings in an argument, but nonconstructive criticisms like the aforementioned one only serve to polarize the discourse, dealing the debate irreparable damage.
I make an effort every week to support my beliefs with coherent, logical arguments based on evidence while respecting those whose beliefs differ from my own.
All I can ask of our commenters is that they try to do the same.
Andrew Shockey is a 20-year-old biological engineering              sophomore from Baton Rouge. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_Ashockey.
____
Contact Andrew Shockey at [email protected]