To make categorical statements regarding the causes of the outcome of the recent election without any substantial evidence is not serious argumentation. To relay one’s supposedly reason-tempered feelings following Trump’s victory within an op-ed context without any rhetorical motivation is not serious writing. Token references to the church’s role in cultural shaping that have no relation to the paragraph let alone the article they’re found in is the result of unserious framing. To think that Donald Trump is worthy of every American’s respect simply because he reached a certain amount of electoral votes is to base the criteria for warranted respect on the assent of the masses — a thought that is only serious when considering the error in its reasoning.

Along with the rhetorical flaws, the recent od-ed piece advocated for an untimely and unwarranted complacency that the authors labeled as patience and respect. Now is not the time for Chimes to publish ill-conceived editorial pieces containing starry-eyed hopes for an abstract idea of “unity.” Now is not a time for journalistic opiates; instead we need hard-nosed gadflies. Following the election of a candidate who was not taking seriously enough leading up to November 8, I call on the editorial staff to exercise critical judgment and publish only the most serious, well-articulated and constructive pieces that members of the Calvin community have to offer. Moreover, I call on the members of the Calvin community to contribute to the dialogue by submitting intelligent, critical and rhetorically sound pieces, a call that I hope will at best bring us closer to determining how to respond to the election, and at worst displace the less polished pieces from the pages of Chimes.