Guest Column:
The 'Eater portrayed Doerflinger unfairly
Published Feb. 23, 2007
In response to the article about the cancellation of "The Queer Monologues," ("Cancellation of 'Queer Monologues' causes rift," Feb. 20) I wanted to set some things straight. First, for the sake of full disclosure, I must make some things known. I was an original contributor to "The Queer Monologues." Four of my pieces were used over the past several years: "Sex," "Drugs," "Rock and Roll" and "In The Ghetto." Also, while a student, I wrote regularly for The Maneater. Finally, I consider John Doerflinger a very close friend.
I don't know the intricacies of the demise of the monologues. All I know is that I am deeply saddened that what could have been a wonderful, artistic legacy has suffered a premature death. I'm not going to point any fingers because I don't know at whom to point them. All I know is that the mission of the monologues became tarnished. What was meant to bring minds together ended up pulling them apart.
What I do know, though, is that The Maneater was completely irresponsible with its coverage of the monologues' demise. The article was, in essence, a public platform for petty bickering, blame-gaming and name-calling. After reading the piece, I had to ask myself, "What was the point?" Yes, the article is timely. And yes, there's a newsworthy angle: A wonderful tradition has come to a tragic end. But to quote students openly bashing a non-elected, private individual like Doerflinger is journalistic negligence. I understand the reporter gave John a chance to state his piece in an attempt to give the illusion of objectivity, but that's just what it was — an illusion.
By permitting the usage of quotes bashing Doerflinger's character, The Maneater has played its part in fanning the flames of drama. John Doerflinger is one of the kindest, most passionate and most creative minds I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. He strives to bring people together. He greets strangers with an open heart and open mind. He carries no prejudices and sees beauty in both the beautiful and the ugly. John is a rare breed, the kind that not only wants to make the world a better place, but grabs it by the balls and makes it one.
To label his decision to withdraw his monologues as childish is to not understand John. If he felt the mission of the monologues was being compromised, if he felt his artistic spirit was being exploited for a cause he could not get behind, then naturally he would maintain his integrity and withdraw his works. And that is what he did. And by doing so, he displayed a degree of maturity, artistic integrity and self-respect that few possess.
And that's what this comes down to — integrity. And in the end, John kept his. The Maneater, sadly, lost it on this one.
