Freedom of expression is a fundamental tenet of American society. But when it comes to the press, publications and their writers should constantly strive to serve an identifiable purpose and benefit
their readers.

The Flip Side recently published a piece in its short fiction section by managing editor Phil Kolas that employs the F-word extensively. A dialogue between two unidentified characters, the piece initially seems to be making a statement about one character’s desire to, in some way, benefit mankind.

The piece then diverges from its altruistic subject matter into what seems to be a statement about how people should take full advantage of the human experience in the way they conduct themselves and interact with others.

All of this discussion centers around the use of the F-word as a vehicle to express the writer’s message – a tactic Kolas and The Flip Side have every right to employ.

But whatever Kolas’ true intentions, his message is overshadowed by his gratuitous use of the F-word.

What could have been an insightful and useful exploration of the human experience eventually digressed into a shameless and shallow piece that actually distracted readers from its own deeper message. The problem, then, wasn’t Kolas’ subject matter, but his poor choice in how to present it.

Every publication has a responsibility to its readers, especially those that are funded directly by them. Kolas’ piece fails to meet this responsibility, abusing The Flip Side’s power as a publication and reflecting poorly on the student body and the university itself without adequate reason to do so.

In the past, The Flip Side’s publication of candidate platforms in various elections and exploration of other issues has served students well, and in ways The Spectator often can’t with so many forces affecting its publication space.

Short fiction and other forms of writing could be part of that service, as long as The Flip Side strives to benefit readers with every piece it publishes.