Must communication, discussion
be crisis situation phenomena?

The editorial of the October 24 issue of the Clarion apparently stimulated quite a little discussion on campus.  This was what it was meant to do.

As I sat one morning in discussion of the editorial and some of the issues it brought to focus, my mind wandered to previous editorials this semester.  Generally they have been of a philosophical nature--no personalities involved, their substance being greatly ideas rather than persons.

In spite of the fact that the ideas presented through the editorials could not possibly be congruous with the thinking of many on campus, there were no reactions, and as far as I could tell no discussion.

A prime example of the situation is the editorial in the September 10 issue of the Clarion which challenged inconsistencies in the Annual Address of the President.  A few days after the paper came out, I was over to see the President.  The Clarion was discussed, but though I waited, the editorial was not even mentioned.

The comparison in reaction between the other editorials, the September one in particular, and last week's editorial seem to lead to the question:  must a "scandal" be created before communication can take place, or; why do people fail to communicate until a crisis situation arises?  Perhaps communication could prevent crisis situations?