“WE DO NOT APOLOGIZE” is prominently emblazoned on the masthead of The Cornell Review. But since that’s not my personal policy, I will apologize. I’m sorry. I really am sorry that you all were offended and feel The Review has created a hostile environment with a few satirical articles. But welcome to life. It’s hostile and you’ll be offended all the time. If you’re not, you should try being conservative.

I’m sorry that it took two hours of a lovely Thursday afternoon to debate how hurt people’s feelings were and I hope that everyone feels better now that the Student Assembly passed a much-amended, extremely vague version of the original resolution that essentially slaps The Review on the wrist and requests to form yet another diversity committee because the first two just weren’t cutting it.

Representative Rebecca Stein hit the nail on the head when she pointed out that the amended resolution didn’t represent the intentions of the original version, suggesting that instead a separate resolution be written to address the new issues that arose in the debate. The new freshmen representatives (with one exception), in their rush to “make an impact” and “take immediate action” and starry eyed with the glamorous idea of forming an ad hoc committee to appease the dissenters in the room, voted anyway. This kind of lame duck legislating has plagued the Student Assembly for years. New members: welcome to Cornell, you’ll fit right in!

Here’s a recap: in the end, The Cornell Review was found in violation of Cornell’s “Statement on Diversity.” What does that mean for the future of The Review? Nothing. There is no course of action, and nothing they can do to prevent the publication of printing similar satirical articles in the future. A community member suggested removing the publication’s “privileges.” What privileges? The Cornell Review does not receive any funding from the University or Student Assembly. With their own operating budget, they are an independent organization that meets, writes, publishes, and distributes on their own dime.

So what does this have to do with the Student Assembly? Again, nothing. Some people were offended by a piece of satire, came to the meeting, hissed every time a conservative stood up and applauded belligerent attacks on the staff, and in the end got exactly what they deserved, and should have expected, from the S.A.: not much.

While talking about diversity issues is important, the Cornell Review should hardly be the scapegoat for the grievances of Cornell’s minority community. Last year, I went to the Student Assembly to express my concern about a Cornell Women’s Resource Center festival in RPCC that included “Dildo Bowling,” “Pin the Clit on the Cunt,” and a giant vagina that you could take your picture peeking through as a souvenir. As a woman, I was offended, but instead of submitting a resolution to defund them or have the “Cornell” removed from their name, I instead asked them to contact me to discuss the issue. People similarly offended by The Cornell Review should have taken a different approach and written a letter to the editor or set up a debate, rather than complain about their hurt feelings to the S.A.

Given their attempt to craft a new image this year (and they have made great strides), the members of the Student Assembly set themselves back by discussing this issue to begin with. A resolution that asks the Student Assembly to ask the administration to ask The Cornell Review to remove the word “Cornell” from its name should have been red flagged off the bat.

Asking an organization to change its name is not even completely legal. If you are offended by this article in The Cornell Daily Sun then can you legally get The Sun to remove “Cornell” from its name? No. If Cornell Laundry, Cornell Barber Shop, or any of the other local businesses who use the Cornell name but are not affiliated with the university, much like the Cornell Review, upset anyone with some poorly pressed pleats or a bad hair cut they would not be facing the same opposition as the Review. The difference? We are conservative.

Think Cornell is a hostile environment for minorities? You should try being conservative. We have more in common than you might think.

A hostile environment is a rally at Ujaama burning hundreds of copies of the Cornell American because they didn’t like the content.

A hostile environment is oranges being thrown at one of your group’s founders when she returns to campus to deliver a speech.

A hostile environment is one in which administrators, even the former President of Cornell, slander your publication in various venues, including commencement.

A hostile environment is not being able to see Attorney General John Ashcroft speak because protesters in black hoods stood up in the front of the auditorium for half the lecture, blocking the view.

A hostile environment is four separate de-funding attempts directed at The Cornell American.

A hostile environment is spending your Thursday afternoon defending your publication to the Student Assembly in the face of charges of racism when the offending article was written by a student who graduated two years ago.

The Cornell Progressive and Bully Pulpit often express their disdain for our perspective. Are we offended that they disagree? No, we encourage it. Having both sides of the issue represented on campus, as campus organizations, is important to the intellectual life of the university. That’s the nature of a healthy institution: all viewpoints are welcome, no need to apologize.

Rachel Quigley is a senior in the School of Hotel Administration, a contributing columnist to The Sun, and a writer for The Cornell Review. She can be contacted at rquigley@cornellsun.com.

Join the conversation.

Is the S.A. right? Is The Review? Or is the larger issue the state of campus race relations? Send your 750-850 word guest column to opinion@cornellsun.com.