I was very surprised by the Voice for Life to appeal group status rejection article that was published in the March 28th edition. To me, the reporting seemed rushed and was missing key points that would be needed for the reader to be able to properly judge the events that occurred.
For starters, it seemed strange to me that the leaked internal correspondences played such a key role in the article, but no connection between the contents of the email and the appeal at hand was made. As a reader I was left wondering why the reporter had told me this information at all. What about the emails was connected to a Voice for Life besides for the fact that the the president of the group received the same emails?
Additionally, it seems to me like some sort of legal council should have been reached for comment. What is the universities position on the issue? (which is distinctly different than the position of the SGA)
In the end I felt as if the SGA's side of the story was not sufficiently reported on. As a strong advocate for pro-choice I did not feel the article had a clear focus on what the main issue here is: whether or not the SGA aproves this club.