In Response to “Why We Need to Stop Clinton and Vote Trump” from October 24


To the editor:

The “Anonymous Guest Writer” of the opinion piece titled “Why We Need to Stop Clinton and Vote Trump” clearly attempts to celebrate Donald Trump’s “erratic behavior, poor public composure, determination, and immaturity that of a small boy [sic].” Somehow, Trump’s deficiencies are supposedly his virtues, in this writer’s twisted “logic.” The writer accuses Clinton supporters of being “easily-manipulated…uneducated, and…[lacking] critical thinking skills.” The writer also says her supporters are primarily minorities, women, and the impoverished. I guess that means minorities, women, and the poor are stupid and easily manipulated. It’s hard to tell, because the writing is so poorly done, a hodgepodge of muddy thinking and muddled grammar, that it almost seems a joke.

What is not a joke is that The Current chose to publish this mishmash of misogyny, hate-speech, and nonsense without attributing it to its author. If someone wants to share their opinion, they should not be allowed to hide behind the veil of being an “Anonymous Guest Writer.” There is no journalistic integrity in publishing unattributed work, even for the sake of stirring up controversy. Even more importantly, there is nothing courageous about publishing one’s opinion without signing one’s name.

I have run out of patience with those who exalt Trump’s cult of ignorance and conspiracy theories. I would encourage The Current to publish responsible articles examining the policy proposals and qualifications of all the candidates. This “anonymous” piece is a waste of the paper it was printed on.

Lynn Staley, Associate Teaching Professor, UMSL


Message From The Current:

The writer of the pro-Trump guest column referred to in the letter-to-the-editor is an UMSL student known to the editors of the paper. They had requested that their name not be used for fear of reprisal. It was submitted by the individual in response to pro-Hillary articles in previous editions. We included it for the sake of allowing a counter-opinion to be voiced and it did not reflect an editorial stand by The Current, only the opinion of the writer.