Response to Pipe Dream Editorial Board

By Sean S. Harrigan

In the past couple of weeks, I have reported a discrimination issue in my Sociology class that garnered national, and in some cases international, attention from multiple news outlets. Pipe Dream’s Editorial Board recently came out with an article titled, “Do as I say, not as I do” that is interesting, to say the least. They are purporting that the news on Professor Candela is “one-sided” since there were no quotes of her. They also make the claim that I did not speak with her before I spoke with the news. Pipe Dream did change their article to something almost as dishonest, but before the change they stated, “Harrigan did not make any attempt to approach Candela and discuss this policy prior to contacting news outlets.” I find it ironic that Pipe Dream writes that I did not talk to Professor Candela personally before this hit the news, especially considering Pipe Dream did not speak to me personally about this being true or not. It is not true; I even have the receipts that I did speak with the Professor and my TA (as the Professor instructs) about this very issue. Pipe Dream’s incorrect remarks were also around the fact that they believe the news interest was, “one-sided” considering there were no quotes from Professor Candela. They fail to mention that Campus Reform’s Logan Dubil, who wrote the original article on the matter, did reach out to the Professor, the Professor just denied to comment.

The article in question by Pipe Dream also refused to ask me for a quote. After contacting them about all of this, they told me, “Also, to be clear, you said you had attempted to meet with Candela—did you actually do so?” which, even if I did say this to them—shocker—I didn’t, it contradicts their article which states that I, “did not make any attempt to approach Candela and discuss this policy prior to contacting news outlets.” What is most concerning is that this college news organization’s editorial board claims that the college’s response, forcing Candela to take down the discriminatory policy is, “shameful”. I must assume that Pipe Dream’s editorial board is in support of discriminatory policies which go against the college’s faculty handbook, and the law. It is a shame that as a society we are transitioning from supporting MLK Jr’s, “I have a dream” speech, to supporting discriminatory policies if they’re against white males specifically.

Pipe Dream also shared the statement from the Women’s Student Union in which they claim the “complaint from this student [Sean Harrigan] illustrates the disconnect many white people have when it comes to race; when white privilege is challenged, some may immediately assume that what they are experiencing is oppression.” This seems like they are infantilizing and discriminating against white people. Yes, you can be a white person and still understand what is going on when it comes to race and privilege in America. I wish I were surprised to see that the Women’s Student Union, who are self-proclaimed feminists, claim that they are not for equal rights and that somehow by discriminating against white people, and white males especially, this is “challenging white privilege.” I don’t see how discrimination or oppression now mean the same thing as, “challenging privilege.” 

There are other concerning groups of people on campus who are in support of such a radical ideology. An online petition was started which states, “As colleagues and students of Professor Ana Candela we are deeply dismayed at the attacks upon her by Fox News and the failure of the SUNY-Binghamton administration to support her.” It was actually over 30 news organizations who lean on both sides of the political spectrum, not only Fox. Certain faculty members have shared with the public that they have signed the petition and are in support of Professor Candela. Some have even said that her policy is for “inclusion.” I am not sure how making a policy that is inherently discriminatory can be considered “inclusion.”

We all understand some white males of history are notorious oppressors, but white males in 2022 largely are not, and must deal with a plethora of obstacles predominantly in their way like homicides, suicides, violence, work-related deaths, drug overdoses, the opioid epidemic, bad literacy rates, infantilization, much higher sentencing rates, higher jailed rates, being discriminated against then being told “you aren’t being discriminated against,” and more. The vast majority of white males in America are 2nd wave feminists, meaning they are in favor of equal rights for everyone. It’s too bad the Women’s Student Union, Pipe Dream’s editorial board, the faculty, others who signed this petition, and many 3rd wave feminists are not for equal rights for everyone. 

The message I would like to get out is that every group of people in America must deal with obstacles, and they have some privileges, yes, some more than others, but we are all in it together, and we must stand up and solve each other’s problems united. It is unacceptable, immoral, and wrong in this specific instance to discriminate against a certain group with the justification of “inclusion,” or that it is “challenging privilege,” even if that group is white males. Unfortunately, some disagree with this, including faculty. So, at this time I open myself up to anyone on campus who would like to have a cordial debate on what I have said here today.

I have offered to debate anyone from the Women’s Student Union on white male versus white female privilege and obstacles. I have yet to receive a response. 

Currently, I extend the invitation to the editorial board of Pipe Dream, specifically on the article the editorial board wrote. I would like to end this piece by saying that I am happy with the outcome of how the school handled the situation, and I do not wish to see Professor Candela fired. I also believe she had good intentions, and I hope that nobody is sending her anything that would be considered “below the belt” or negative.

         As Pipe Dream’s editorial board would like others to do, but not themselves, I have reached out to them for comment, but they have not responded as of writing this article.