The forum article “The 38th Parallel: Guilford’s on-campus divide” in the April 16 issue of The Guilfordian was rightfully intended and agreeable, for the most part. However, it was disheartening to see this thoughtful attempt at reconciliation between our school’s traditional students’ major social divide marred in the final sentences by an ignorant lapse into the very stereotyping the article claims to fight.”Club sports do offer a unique opportunity that seems to bridge the gap. These students are athletes and hippies, drug-users and competitors. They live a life that pulls from both sides and can easily navigate from one to the other,” the second-to-last paragraph reads. While I agree that club sports offer a unique bridge to the divide, pulling participants from both social spheres, it is shocking to see such polarizing language inserted at the end of an article that is eschewing the existing negative stereotypes of each group.

As a member of the club rugby team I was embarrassed to see that my team’s contribution to the social atmosphere of this campus has been reduced to providing a setting in which the apparently defining characteristics of our campus’ cliques can meet: the “hippie” “drug-user” and “athlete” “competitor.” Not all non-athletes are hippies or drug-users and many athletes on our school’s DIII teams fall into one or both of these categories.

I applaud the spirit and effort of the piece in addressing the perpetual (and worsening) social chasm between athletes and non-athletes at Guilford. However, while “Each side is perpetuated by negative stereotypes,” quoting Bryan Jones in the article, The Guilfordian is strengthening the divide by reducing each side to such simple, and offensive, in one case, labels.

I demand that as the only consistent (and trusted) campus news outlet, The Guilfordian provide more careful coverage in the future, especially on delicate issues like this.

Max George