I will only comment briefly on Mr. Randy Brachman’s column, which is so ill-informed and confused that it does not merit serious engagement. I suggest that if Mr. Brachman actually wants to understand the dispute, rather than merely comment on it, he ought to read the same newspaper that has the unfortunate habit of publishing him. As for Mr. Andrew Gottlieb, I feel that I cannot comment on his column unless I have a better sense of what his own situation is. Perhaps he has been fitted with one of those invisible-fence dog collars and cannot leave the 40 for fear he will be shocked. If not, he is perfectly free to go off campus and buy the tomatoes he seems to so desperately need—admittedly an inconvenience, but one that pales in comparison to the inconveniences suffered by the workers of The Coalition of Immokalee Workers, who only have the tremendously inconvenient choice of working under awful conditions or taking the risk that their families might starve. While Mr. Gottlieb may or may not be restricted to the 40, it is a fact that members of the union have been literally chained up by their employers.

While I respect Dennis Sweeney’s call for civility in this discussion, it is all too easy for that civility to represent a cavalier attitude toward this issue. The tomato ban concerns the lives and rights of real people; it is not a parlor game or a mental exercise that pits abstract rights against personal preference. And as such, if I must endure a minor inconvenience to support the right of every human being to earn an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work, I will willingly—no, proudly—endure it.

Dylan is a senior in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at dmsuher@wustl.edu.

Let me first respond to the most outrageous of Mr. Brachman’s assertions: “Now correct me if I’m wrong about this, but I don’t think there were any big names here either.” Well, here comes the correction. Talib Kweli and David Banner are both critically and popularly successful legends of the rap world. Mr. Kweli’s albums have soared as high as No. 2 on the billboard album charts (which includes both rap and non-rap music), has collaborated with other heavyweights including Mos Def and has drawn strong praise in the lyrics of one of the most famous rappers of all time, Jay-Z. As for Mr. Banner? He has had a top-10 single, is in the midst of a national tour, and has sold well over a million albums since his debut in 2003. Mr. Brachman clearly did not know this as he made his claim, and I hope in the future that he will not let his own ignorance about hip-hop lead him to make false statements such as this one.

Now there is one point on which I agree with Mr. Brachman, which is that Night Owl is not a terribly popular or well-known artist. However, I would argue that few acts that are the first opener for a six-act lineup such as W.I.L.D. are well known. The point of an opener is to kill some time and get people psyched about the acts to come, which Night Owl did a competent job of. Furthermore, the argument that Night Owl is no good because he lacks a Wikipedia entry is simply ludicrous. I could create a Wikipedia entry about myself, but would that make me more qualified to play W.I.L.D. than Night Owl? I hope for the sake of the student body that that is not the case!

Now, on to the complaints about the food. Team 31 is not to blame for the lack of Chipotle. They and the Student Union made it abundantly clear before W.I.L.D. that the quantities of Chipotle were limited, and that they, along with shutter shades, were designed to act as incentive to get people to arrive early to W.I.L.D. As Mr. Brachman’s complaints illustrate, this clearly worked, and although I received neither, I applaud the attempts of SU and Team 31 to pack the house for their concert, as any good promoter should.

Finally, Mr. Brachman complained about the genre makeup of the W.I.L.D. lineup. While I might include myself among the group of people who are not the largest fans of hip-hop, I do know that many of my peers are fans. I realize that there are many genres of music, which are all valid forms of musical expression. I refuse to knock one simply because it is not my taste. Like Mr. Brachman, were I to get my wishes, I too would have probably rather seen a rock band at fall W.I.L.D. Unlike Mr. Brachman, I, however, have the sense to know that were a rock band to play, rap fans would have as much of a reason to gripe as he does as a rock fan. This is why Team 31 has adopted the fair tradition of inviting mostly hip-hop artists to fall W.I.L.D., and mostly rock artists to spring W.I.L.D. So before knocking Team 31, Mr. Brachman should simply wait a semester and enjoy Spring W.I.L.D. like the rest of us rock fans.

Although it sounds like something my father might tell me, I would like to point out that I really enjoyed this fall’s W.I.L.D., largely because I went in with a good attitude. I hadn’t heard much live rap music, so I enjoyed the chance to hear something new. For that, I am grateful for the efforts of Team 31, and am happy to defend them against unfair criticisms.

After leaving what I thought was a spectacular concert two Saturday nights ago, I couldn’t help but brag to my friends at other schools about not only W.I.L.D. in general, but especially our latest concert. Team 31 managed to bring in performers who were both well-known and critically-acclaimed. So you can imagine my surprise upon learning that Student Life’s Randy Brachman disapproved of nearly every aspect of the concert.

In his column, “Wash. U. Gone W.I.L.D,” (Oct. 15) Brachman says, “Now, correct me if I’m wrong about this, but I don’t think there were any big names here either.” That’s easy enough. Talib Kweli, in terms of modern hip-hop, is one of the most respected artists alive. Last week Student Life did a profile on Kweli (which I assume Brachman failed to read) that discussed his current stature and importance in the world of hip-hop. If Brachman was not hoping for a widely-acclaimed artist like Kweli, and instead for a chart-topping artist whose songs constantly fill radio airwaves, he had to look no further than David Banner. Banner’s latest album debuted at No. 8 on the Billboard charts, and he has had numerous hit singles over the past five years.

I am personally unsure about Brachman’s claims that the Chipotle burritos ran out earlier than expected. I was there to listen to the music as opposed to eat a burrito that I could get any day after a 15-minute walk to the Loop. But, as Brachman says, that’s not really important to the story.

Brachman later takes the liberty of assessing a concert that he admittedly left after the opening act. He missed both Kid Sister (whose concert, although sparsely attended, was widely enjoyed by all spectators) and Little Brother, an indie hip-hop act whose performance was widely cited as one of the shining moments of this year’s W.I.L.D. Little Brother was followed by Banner, whose electrifying concert involved numerous stage dives, a student pulled onto the stage, and raucous cheering from a well-entertained crowd. Next on was Kweli, who sang songs off of his recent album as well as older crowd-favorites that had the crowd rapping along with him. The concert didn’t even stop there, as Little Brother, Banner and Kweli all retook the stage for an unscheduled 20-minute encore that involved freestyles and reinterpretations of old hip-hop classics. I’m pretty sure that even someone like Brachman, who admittedly is not a hip-hop fan, could’ve found something in that final performance to like.

As if passing judgment on a concert he failed to see was not enough, Brachman goes on to suggest that we get a band like R.E.M. or the Arctic Monkeys to play at the next W.I.L.D. These are both bands that have headlined major music festivals, and with no offense intended to Team 31, we do not have near the sort of budget necessary for acts of that stature. In fact, getting Talib Kweli and David Banner was seen as somewhat of a coup (and the first nearly complaint-free W.I.L.D. choice in a while), as noted in a previous Student Life article. Along those lines, acts like the two Brachman suggests are completely unrealistic. However, he then changes his tune and requests “an indie rock band that no one has ever heard of.” How would that be any better than rap acts that he claims no one has ever heard of? I am personally a fan of indie rock, but if Brachman is looking for big name performers (as he stated earlier in the article), switching from rap to indie rock is certainly not the way to go.

To top it all off, Brachman suggests that we “get some instruments and musicianship back on that stage.” This comment is simply insulting to the Rhythm and Roots All-Stars, who played as a backup group for the three final artists of the show and whose performance was praised by every musician with whom I have discussed the show. However, I guess it’s hard to witness a great performance by a band that consists of drums, horns, guitars, bass, steel pans, other percussion instruments and vocalists when you’re back in your dorm during their set like Brachman was.

I hope that Brachman gets his wish and that all subsequent W.I.L.D.s are head and shoulders above this previous one, because that would mean that Wash. U. would be able to witness a multitude of incredible concerts. However, given the success achieved by Team 31 and the acts featured in the latest installment, topping Fall W.I.L.D. 2008 will prove to be a tough feat.

Why was everyone so riled up about Randy’s column? I’ve heard a couple of reasons.

The first is that its method was disrespectful and poorly executed. Criticism is fine, people said, but not when it is displayed in such a way. The Orientation Executive Board implies the same thing in their letter to the editor: They “would appreciate constructive criticism” sent to their e-mail address in clear opposition to what they thought Brachman’s article perpetrated.

I thought his criticism was indeed constructive: Most mandatory events entailed being talked at. Other events made it hard to interact with other freshmen. Events went late and caused sleep deprivation. Events were not memorable.

And his method, though perhaps not expert, was honest. He began with an introduction of self: “I am a freshman, and here is my personal experience.” He claims no more authority than that. He admits that he likes winning, and he acknowledges the reader-writer pact. His tone is sincere.

Comments and letters to the editor in opposition to the article, though, were generally neither constructive nor expertly formulated. Two of the comments were bitterly sarcastic: “I think your humility will truly benefit the WU community” and “I am sure that constructive criticism and positive thinking would do much to spare next year’s freshmen from suffering such a horrible fate as yours.” Needless to say, not only are these writers jerks, but also their style contradicts their own assertions.

And if we are talking about poor execution, let’s talk about the letters to the editor. I won’t point out particular parts in Joseph Marcus’ letter because I admire him for putting himself out there in the name of positivity, but I will say that I am surprised that nobody commented about his writing style—when we agree with the content, we let poor execution slip by, though we pounce on it feverishly when we think it purports controversial beliefs.

The Orientation executives’ letter, on the other hand, bothers me not so much with its sterile verbage but with its own lack of support for its claims. The “freshman orientation evaluation from this year,” on which Orientation activities appear to be “highly ranked as fun programs,” doesn’t have any bearing at all on Brachman’s claims. He made legitimate criticisms, and high “fun” rankings (and number one rankings for helpfulness in preparing for Wash. U.—duh) don’t refute those. Only good sense does, and we don’t see that in the Executive Board’s letter.

I understand as well the second criticism of Brachman’s article, and perhaps the one that most inflamed tempers: that many people had worked very hard on Orientation this year for very little compensation. A lot, indeed, was put into this event.

But hear this: Every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, Student Life comes out with a staff editorial criticizing something in the University that has gone wrong. Last Monday, it was communication about construction. Now, I cannot even imagine the amount of resources going into construction right now and the amount of effort going into the links between Clayco, Residential Life and Washington University as a whole. It is on their minds, to be sure. But they still do a terrible job at this communication. Nobody has any idea what is going on with construction. This need to change. Using so many resources to do a job so poorly is even sadder than not having tried in the first place.

The same goes for all Student Life staff editorials, and the same goes for Student Life columns. People, generally, do the best they can. They know the goal, and they are working toward it. But sometimes they do an awful job. That’s where we step in, as an entity not so entrenched in the relevant work as to be blind to its macro results.

People work hard, but often they need to change anyway. Communication about construction certainly does. Maybe Orientation needs to change as well.