This Letter to the Editor was written in response to columnist Samuel Krueger’s column, Evangelicals aren’t lost, published in the Oct. 18, 2017 issue of The Clarion.  If you would like to submit a response or an opinion piece of your own, please contact [email protected].

By Haley Johnson

According to a new rule put in place by The Clarion editor, readers are not allowed to write responses to responses. Yet, Krueger has written an opinion piece that is a direct and deliberate attack response against Kailyn Hill, who wrote a response to Krueger’s Sept. 14 column, The constitutional case to end DACA.

I understand that he is a steady columnist for The Clarion, and that he can technically write about what he wants. But, that should not mean he gets to write a response to the same person that initially responded to him. In fact it’s an abuse of the title that Krueger holds on the Clarion team if he does make a response. This opinion was as if Krueger was saying to Hill and everyone else for that matter that because Donald Trump won the presidency, he’s going to reexamine the election as a way to put you in your place, and because of the rules put in place you won’t be able to respond to me and refute what I have said.

Hill even identifies in her article that she wasn’t going to get too overly political in her piece, yet Krueger attacks her with a piece that is titled “Evangelicals aren’t lost” that draws directly from Hill’s piece.

Krueger then ends the whole piece by saying, “just remember, you have at least three more years to practice saying “President Trump.”” Hill never said she had an issue with calling him President Trump, in fact, Hill says she prays that Trump would find success. She ended her response to Krueger’s initial piece with a note to remind us that we should all hope for the best, but Krueger finished his piece by reminding Hill to basically “stay in her lane, because he’s president now”.

I’m bringing this up because I have an issue with the rules that say that readers can’t respond to responses, while columnists can respond to the responses. If we are really trying to create and facilitate a community that talks about political ideas, Krueger should have talked to Hill personally about the facts that he lists in his response. He should not have used The Clarion as a platform to push his own agenda as someone who has a position on The Clarion. Because all this does is create an argument formed on The Clarion, and no one ever actually talks face-to-face. It becomes this back and forth between the two of them, that could have easily been avoided if The Clarion team had held themselves to the same standards that they hold their readers.

The Clarion advertises that the Truth Matters, and while Krueger’s piece is truthful, it is an attack against the people who are consumers of your articles but are completely stifled by the rules that are in place only for the consumers and not for their own team.

Allowing Krueger to write a response to another response is complete abuse of power that The Clarion team allowed him to do. Does it make it fair if this response is published, since it’s a response to his?