This is a response to Mr. Rolinski's

letter that we received and printed last issue regarding Nick Kastner's cartoons and their accused

misrepresentation of the UD "community's maturity and demand for actual fact-based arguments."

I've written before that, as stated in our policy, Flyer News works to serve the campus community and offers a forum for opinion. More so than ever would I like to reiterate that point now.

As a cartoonist for FN, Kastner's job is not to represent the UD community.

Our paper indeed offers a forum for opinion, and the opinions

page is where Kastner chooses to express himself. Note that our policy also reads that FN does not necessarily uphold or advocate the opinions in the columns, letters or cartoons appearing in the opinion pages. In fact, the only opinion we do uphold and advocate is our staff editorial. The cartoons Kastner creates are from his personal opinions.

Are Kastner's viewpoints wrong? Whether one agrees or disagrees with the message of his cartoons is beside the point.

The differing opinions on campus

simulate the diversity of thought in society, which is exactly what a newspaper should be about.

Kastner's cartoons often provoke

a stir or even controversy on many topics around campus. True, a number of his cartoons have been aimed at the administration. By no means is he viciously attacking President Curran or Sister Schmeling,

but instead is portraying another

element that journalists strive to achieve: Newspapers must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.

President Curran and Sister Schmeling are both public figures in UD's community, and each decision either of them makes will in some way or another affect someone at UD. They accepted their respective positions and they accepted the fact that the decisions they make will carry a degree of weight and will not always go over well with all parties

involved.

Another element we as journalists

shoot for is to serve as an independent

monitor of power. We call it the "watchdog" role. Kastner has the guts, so to speak, to call out public figures on things that he disagrees

with.

How can one say that Sister Schmeling's perhaps indirect response

to Kastner's cartoon via an e-mail to the entire student body is a negative effect of his cartoon? The cartoon evoked a response from Sister

Schmeling putting herself on the record to say that: "Be assured that I serve you with an openness to listen and discover not simply with just eyes and ears, but with mind. I will welcome the opportunity...to convene

as a community and to address the issues that matter most to you."

If there was any failure to communicate

between students and Sister

Schmeling regarding her level of interest in student issues and opinions,

Kastner's cartoon may have just opened a forum for discussion between the two parties.

I've sat in during meetings with leaders of student organizations on campus regarding "issues" with our dean of students, and while Mr. Rolinski

writes that "not all students are behind Kastner," believe me when I say that Kastner's cartoon regarding Sister Schmeling accurately

portrayed the viewpoint of many of the student leaders I've listened

to.

So I applaud Sister Schmeling's response in her e-mail, as it is at least telling students that she will attempt to work better with us. But without the public forum for discussion that FN offers, would Sister Schmeling have included that paragraph assuring

us of her level of interest?

So whether or not readers agree with Kastner's opinions, it is evident that the cartoons indeed have an impact

on our campus. But Kastner need not be alone in this endeavor. All students at UD have a voice, and whether they express it through letters or cartoons, I invite them to share it with us.