This will be my last article for The Point Weekly. A recent action taken by this publication's editorial staff has incensed me to the point where I cannot and will not be a further part of this publication.

        First, a little background. The editorial staff of this paper has, on previous occasion, taken actions which I didn't agree with at the time, but went along with out of respect for the positions and experience of the staff. Firstly, on numerous occasions, particularly last semester, my articles failed to be published on the week after I submitted them. I understand that this is a typical occurrence for a newspaper, but in talking with Opinion Editor Dave Bell, my articles would always have a lower priority (after letters to the editor) than his articles or Travis Baker's column (which is a paid position). Even if what I had to say was more current or better written, the precious opinion page space would, by default, go to them. I believe that whenever my articles were not printed on the week written, my credibility was hurt, and that it would be fairer to grant every columnist an equal shot.

        On another occasion, I put together a web page containing an archive of my columns. This web page contained nothing but my columns, and had no commercial purpose whatsoever, but I was told that I could not have this address appended to my columns, due to a policy that The Point Weekly keeps against issuing endorsements outside of paid advertisements.

        As stated before, I chafed at these decisions, but I accepted them. However, this last week, something happened which I found intolerable. As the ASB election approached, I thought of the idea of writing a column about it. Not to be immodest, but I consider myself the closest thing we have around here to a former politician who decides to go into journalism after retiring from the political arena. Also, I had never seen anyone address the ASB Elections before in these pages, other than those who wished to cite certain physical variations such as gender as an influence in an election.

        I realized that I was dealing with a potentially volatile subject, as well as one that if it wouldn't be printed that week, would make no sense to print at all. After consulting with Bell, Point Weekly editor Jen Newlin, and advisor Dr. Dean Nelson, the conclusion seemed to be reached that so long as the article did not particularly endorse one candidate over the other, that it was acceptable. Scaling back my original vision of addressing all the races and picking whom I thought would win, I wrote what I felt to be an acceptably non-partial analysis of the unopposed candidate for Director of Activities, Andrew Vick, as well as this year's excellent race for ASB President, saying only positive things about each candidate involved. Finishing the article, I proceeded to pack up and attend this year's Senior Cruise.

        After I got back from the cruise, a message was on my answering machine from Newlin. The gist of the message was that she had decided to pull my article out of concern for the non-endorsement policy, as well as feeling that my article could unduly influence the race. To me, the conclusion was unavoidable that I had been unfairly censored.

        The idea that my article would determine the race seemed ludicrous to me. I believe that the students attending this school are mature and rational people, capable of making their own decisions. But, if my thoughts got them thinking about the election, then so much the better! Too often, ASB elections turn into beauty/popularity contests, with a quarter of a million dollar budget the prize! Helping people see some of the differences between very qualified candidates can only help the wisdom of student body's decisions.

        But the Point editorial staff saw that this was something new. Perhaps they feared that a losing candidate going over the edge, dropping all traces of sanity and intellect by the wayside and attempt to press a case that he or she lost the race due to my column. The very thought is absurd.

        The truth is plain. I did not libel anybody. I did not endorse anybody over anybody else, and the problem was not one of insufficient space. I was censored, which should be utterly anathema to anyone who considers himself or herself a seeker of the truth.

        This is why I must leave. My articles are an attempt to find truth in a world that doesn't often value it, and if I am to do this, I must have leave to speak my mind freely. I know for a fact that there are powerful people in this school, whom it would not be inappropriate to label as my enemies. These people would be altogether too giddy to learn that censoring me is seemingly an acceptable action.

        Or perhaps I'm just some prima donna throwing a temper tantrum over the fact than an editorial decision didn't go my way. As always, I leave you to decide. But always think, always learn and always question.

        Vaya con Dios.