On Sept. 3, a Facebook message went out to residential advisors alerting them to the presence of an article by freshman Randy Brachman in Student Life’s Forum section that largely criticized Washington University’s Orientation program. By Friday, nine comments had already been posted below the article at www.studlife.com. In Friday’s print edition, two letters to the editor defended this year’s Orientation program.

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.