Unpromoted Crimson Editor Burns Bridges, Collects Ashes, Re-Burns Them; Then Packs Ash Ashes Into Payload of Nuclear Warhead and Hurls Into Sun
The editorial board has proven to be an excluding, cliqued organization that stands commensurate with as final clubs, all while criticizing those same clubs with a hypocrisy that would startle Mark Foley.
So a Harvard sophomore wasn't elected to serve another year on the editorial board of the Crimson, and he is just a touch unhappy about it. In a 1,183-word letter of resignation emailed to Crim president Will Marra and the entire board, this kid unloads on pretty much everyone, from the mortals who dared edit his pristine copy to the editors who made the "baffling" decision not to keep him aboard.
On a more personal note, I ask these same incompetent or undedicated peers, who would be editing and evaluating my signed pieces and my layout work next semester if I do not resign: Who are you to judge the quality of my work, when I was the one often cleaning up after your sloppy content and making so many solid contributions to the board this semester?
Yes, I have "weaknesses." I can imagine being criticized during deliberations for not always being the most fluid elocutionist and for not being able to "think on my feet." No, especially not after running on my feet, dressed up, to the board-wide shoot interview from Cabot to Dunster for 30 minutes in the pouring rain. Or going to a schmooze after getting zero sleep the previous night because I was working in The Crimson (how ironic) and had two midterms that week.
The entire rant-tastic missive is after the jump. Baby, this is Harvard! You expected to be judged on your merits?
UPDATE: After some published soul-searching, we've redacted this kid's name.
From: [redacted]
Date: Nov 19, 2006 7:52 PM
Subject: [Editorial-l] A letter of resignation
To: [editorial-l list]
To The Crimson Editorial Board:
I am officially resigning as an editor of The Crimson editorial board.
Now before you pigeonhole me as yet another victim of the claws of the
"Turkey Shoot," let me tell you that my frustrations are about so much
more. The editorial board has proven to be an excluding, cliqued
organization that stands commensurate with as final clubs, all while
criticizing those same clubs with a hypocrisy that would startle Mark
Foley. I loathe the next time the board speaks of meritocracies, because
the board is anything but one.
Since I was elected last spring, I have busted my balls for the board,
to the point of making sacrifices in my academic work and social life.
For some weeks I have even been in the building more than 40 hours. From
writing staff editorials during finals week last year to serving as
editorial night editor for numerous ungodly news-board-worthy hours this
semester, I can righteously say that "the editorial board has been my life."
But during my time on the board, I've found myself often not called on
during staff meetings without resorting to rude interruption (while
others get *asked* if they have an opinion about the issue under
discussion or are repeatedly called upon to speak), left out during
board dinners and happy hours, and generally excluded from board
activities by the fall 2005 comp-class Eliot/Winthrop clique and those
currently in the board leadership who have been courted to their favor.
I'm now rarely at any happy hour, because the few happy hours I did go
to have only left me feeling further excluded by the status quo. They
are anything but "happy" for me. And from speaking with other elected
editors from my comp class who have become less active with the board,
they feel the same way-a general sense of alienation from the
"establishment."
Nor has the work I have done for the board been of shoddy quality. Quite
the opposite, if you ask any exec which I've worked closely with during
layout, they can attest to the fact that I do one of the most meticulous
jobs with proofing and laying out the page. These same execs can attest
to my strong writing ability as well: With few exceptions, I have always
turned in excellent staff editorials and signed pieces which were
carefully researched, edited, and fact-checked.
It's appalling and disgusting how many times I've been at staff meeting,
and no one wants to write the staff editorials that have just been
passed (except for the weeks leading into the shoot when everyone wants
to demonstrate their "dedication"). I see some people chosen for the
134th Guard, without naming names, who have not written a single signed
piece this entire semester and barely any staff editorials. I see other
people chosen as execs who turn in content with quality so atrocious,
that each time I'm in the office doing layout, I hear the current execs
profane their work (e.g. "This staff editorial is so fucking bad"). What
does it mean for our future for people to be chosen as content-editing
execs who can't turn in one coherent piece that isn't riddled with
factual errors, syntactical and stylistic gaffes, and logical fallacies,
or who haven't made any substantive contributions to the board as far as
I can see?
(Of course, this doesn't apply to all of the associate execs of the
134th Guard. Some of you do genuinely deserve your position, even though
almost all of you are from the Eliot/Winthrop clique. Nor does this
apply to either AMG or DMT.)
And on a more personal note, I ask these same incompetent or undedicated
peers, who would be editing and evaluating my signed pieces and my
layout work next semester if I do not resign: Who are you to judge the
quality of my work, when I was the one often cleaning up after your
sloppy content and making so many solid contributions to the board this
semester?
Yes, I have "weaknesses." I can imagine being criticized during
deliberations for not always being the most fluid elocutionist and for
not being able to "think on my feet." No, especially not after running
on my feet, dressed up, to the board-wide shoot interview from Cabot to
Dunster for 30 minutes in the pouring rain. Or going to a schmooze after
getting zero sleep the previous night because I was working in The
Crimson (how ironic) and had two midterms that week.
But if I am to be judged on the same terms as a final club "punch"
would, then God help me. I wasn't shooting for President of The Crimson.
I wouldn't make a good president. Office politics is not my forte. I was
shooting for associate editorial executive, a position with
solicitation, content-editing, and layout responsibilities. These are
things I can do very competently, and I have a demonstrable track record
to prove that I am willing to put the time into doing them and doing
them well. This record is something that no amount of "schmoozing" can
erase or build.
Even more baffling is that one outgoing executive even told me at the
beginning of the shoot that there would be no set number of executives
selected. I quote, "If we think you deserve to be an associate, you will
be." Now I ask, what could I have possibly done more, substantively, for
the board, short of dropping out of my classes and becoming full-time
volunteer staff, to merit a position as a layout and content-editing
executive, if I am not even being judged in comparison with my peers?
And so here's my question to all the outgoing execs who thought me
unworthy: You've hurt me and taken my passion for journalism and The
Crimson and stepped on it. Why?
I will be coming in for my last layout assist with DMT after dinner
today, a person who is one of the hardest and fairest workers on the
board. It's truly a pity that I cannot say the same for all the other
people chosen as the 134th Guard, some of whom have been chosen more for
their social status, personal flair, and "schmoozing" (on so many
levels) over their dedication to the board and their editing ability.
And it's truly a pity that the strongest bastion of journalism on campus
is driven so much by this kind of farcical inertia.
I'm sorry for having to write this letter. But as vindictive as this
letter has sounded, some things just have to be said the hard way. I may
just have driven myself further down a path of social alienation, but it
couldn't really be much worse than the alienation with which I have been
tacitly greeted by some at the board already, far before the shoot
process began, right?
Goodbye,
[redacted]
P.S. This letter is not addressed categorically to every editor and
executive on the board, many of whom I have sincerely enjoyed working
with and whom I deeply respect. You all know who you are. Please keep
the old sheet flying!
UPDATE: After some published soul-searching, we've redacted this kid's name.
23 Comments | 
| 
Print This Post
Read more: Harvard, Harvard Crimson, this is why people hate the ivy league
Email – 
Search
About
Follow us on Twitter
Report a bug
Archives
RSS Feed
November 20th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
This is hilarious. The last paragraph, especially… it’s not his choice–the letter had to be written.
The irony, of course, is that the letter should probably have been much shorter. The content is full of superfluous prose, and the same point could have been made in about 400 words, without losing any of his force.
The fact that he felt the need to use 1,183 makes me wonder about his ability to be a good editor.
November 20th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
please quit posting this stuff. it’s a kid in turmoil after a really rough process, and it’s not up for consumption without the cultural context of the Crimson. Leave the kid alone, okay?
November 20th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
i agree with the commenter above. yeah, it may be self-righteous, but how do you know that he’s wrong about the culture of The Crimson?
November 20th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
So how does this stuff get outside of the Crimson? When I edited a publication, we did all of our board selection on paper, shredded everything immediately after, and impressed on everyone that that stuff was to stay behind closed doors. Is Harvard’s process different, or were the personal statements and this e-mail “leaked”?
I have to laugh because the self-importance of Ivy League “newspapers” and their staffers is something of a spectacle.
Maybe the irony that I missed is that with this kid’s amount of pretense and self-righteousness, it’s hard to say that he’s not executive board material.
November 20th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
If this is a genuine email, then I’m not so inclined to call the kid self-righteous. He’s just been hit with his first dose of reality in the working world and doesn’t know what else to do besides get angry and flail his arms around. You see, Yifei, here in the working world, long-working hours and a strong work ethic have the opposite effect of what you were expecting – it makes you look like a worker, not a leader. And who wants to promote a worker, because who then would do all the work? And why would leaders in the clique want to welcome someone who makes them look bad? After a few more experiences like this, being shit upon and ignored that is, you may learn how to exit more quietly and find environments where cliques are easier to infiltrate, where you have your own eager-to-please interns and such doing all the hard work. But if hard work really floats your boat, then consider self-employment, instead of an office environment.
November 20th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Yeah, cut the guy some slack. Because, you know, his whole life is ruined now. Without this promotion, his whole plan to get into Columbia Journalism school and apprentice with Al Gore will never come true. Now he’ll be stuck in some awful place like Georgetown and have to toil away in obscurity writing for US News and World Report (shudder). And let’s not even start with his parents’ reaction.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
“Unpromoted Crimson Editor Burns Bridges, Collects Ashes, Re-Burns Them; Then Packs Ash Ashes Into Payload of Nuclear Warhead and Hurls Into Sun”
That’s the funniest thing I’ve read on this website so far. Great title.
November 20th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
This guy’s UC election page has more of the same (vaguely out-of-the-loop writings that are trying a little too hard): http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~chen13/
November 20th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
With the number of grammatical errors and strange bits of usage in that letter… yeah, I think the Crimson might actually have made the right choice for once.
November 20th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
You can’t uninvite me to your birthday party BECAUSE I DIDN’T WANT TO GO TO A BIRTHDAY PARTY WITH A BUNCH OF DOODY HEADS ANYWAY!
November 20th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Yifei Chen OMG I knew that tool in high school. Glad to see things haven’t changed a bit.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Geez, guys, give it a rest, all of you. Kid works hard, doesn’t get a promotion, writes a private email, some Ivy Leage douche leaks it to two more Ivy League douches (that’s you, IvyGate), and everyone feels like they can pass judgment on him. Chill out.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
I usually like your blog, but I think this is really inappropriate to post – you guys should be ashamed of yourselves. It’s one thing to make fun of people who are politicians, movie stars, etc., and so expect to be constantly in the public eye. It’s entirely different to publicly humiliate — and explicitly name — someone who wrote a letter to the editorial board under the assumption that the explicit non-forwarding rule of the email list would be honored. He didn’t want his name all over cyberspace associated with this, he never gave you the right to print his email — isn’t there something illegal here? Whether or not this is allowed by law, you’ve singlehanded publicly humiliated/shamed an innocent person — congratulations. I really think you guys should be more careful about posting people’s thoughts without their consent, both for moral and legal reasons.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the thought that this is pretty mean to this guy, but I just want to briefly point out that the journalism industry wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for leaks, so it seems disingenuous to give journalists (especially Crimson writers, who are notorious for printing “off the record” comments or taking quotes radically out of context) a free pass.
November 21st, 2006 at 12:02 am
It’s one thing to post emails from top Crimson editors about an internal dispute about how they should cover themselves. That’s clearly fair game if the emails are leaked. They shouldn’t be given a free pass, since they do similar things as journalists. It’s another thing to post an email from a random nonexecutive at The Crimson who is upset about his lack of position. This has absolutely no value whatsoever except to make the kid look like an asshole. He may well be an asshole, I don’t know him, but he doesn’t deserve to have the whole world know that because he posted something to a list when he was upset. This isn’t like Aleksey Vayner, who made up lies about himself and circulated them widely. I don’t think The Crimson would publish something like this (though if people have counterexamples I’d be interested).
November 21st, 2006 at 12:11 am
NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!
November 21st, 2006 at 7:15 am
Yifei may or may not be a tool. But he was right about the crimson editorial board, which elected 5 out of their 6 recent associates from one blocking group.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:52 am
I didn’t finish reading Yifei’s resignation letter, for the same reason he probably didn’t get promoted: the kid can’t write. Well, it’s either that, or the Crimson editorial board is “an excluding, cliqued organization that stands commensurate with as final clubs.”
November 21st, 2006 at 3:43 pm
While I think the verdict on toolishness has come down quite clearly, I think “jj” misses the fact that blocking groups are selected towards the end of freshman year–indeed, basically into the second semester of involvement with an organization if you comp in the fall. The fact that they’re all from the same blocking group does not independently prove anything. Knowing a few of them, the actual reality seems to be that they blocked together AFTER becoming heavily involved with the board, not vice versa, which actually makes sense in a world lacking insane, petty conspiracy theories levied by morons.
December 31st, 2006 at 2:27 pm
i like yifei
February 16th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
kid’s a winner.
http://www.andrewdegrado.org/2002_comp4/yifei_chen.htm
February 16th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
kid’s a winner.
http://www.andrewdegrado.org/2002_comp4/yifei_chen.htm
June 7th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
this is in poor taste IvyGate. i know it’s a fine line between humor and integrity, but you guys should know better. this kid does not deserve the ridicule of your readership and a lifetime of google-ability for an angry email (which may very well have been appropriate – you and I both don’t know the circumstances). So yea, be smarter about this next time please.