Last Wednesday, The Daily’s lead story, “Students mobilize against racism,” told of packed rooms and impassioned discussions. Nearly 50 students gathered in El Centro Chicano to discuss the legacy of institutional racism in the wake of recent events in Jena, La. In light of the full turnout at the event, entitled “Modern-Day Lynching: A Look into the Horror,” and the news coverage that it received, readers may be surprised to know that some students opposed the staging of the conversation.

Toward the end of the discussion, one organizer read from emails he had received criticizing the publicity of the event. A stunned silence swept over the room as attendees listened to a sample of the critical emails: “Aren’t you blowing this out of proportion?” read one. “When six people gang up on one how can you say [the black teenagers responding to nooses hung at their school] were lynched?” read another. Diverse as the participants in the Jena-6 conversation were, those in the room in some way or another had come to understand the potent symbolism of nooses and the injustice of the trials that followed.

This is not an editorial about the self-selecting nature of activism events; last week’s event should not be understood as catering to a narrow or close-minded group. In fact, the opposite was true — an incredibly heterogeneous mix of individuals attended “Modern-Day Lynching.” It is safe to say, however, that everyone present was indignant about the negative comments in the emails. These comments were striking not only because they were severely out of touch with the moral outrage of those in the room, but also because such callous and insensitive comments were delivered via email — an unconstructive and noncommittal medium — which made these criticisms exponentially more obnoxious.

Cranky, condemning emails from students who are just passionate enough in their opinions to disapprove of what others have worked hard to create are a phenomenon that is familiar to most campus groups. In the interest of full disclosure, the Editorial Board receives emails and comments on its Web site, and, while many are constructive, others are of the sort condemned in this editorial. Emails are quick, easy, noncommittal, non-confrontational and satisfying for the sender.

These traits make email a perfect vehicle for facile criticisms such as the ones outlined above which allow critics to publicize their contempt while eliminating their obligation to weigh and consider other opinions. These pseudo-critics consider their beliefs important enough to whip up a quick email but often do not have enough conviction to engage in a conversation. Such emails can be tedious and cowardly. They seem to be written solely for the self-gratification of the senders, who will take a two-second shot at a project that others have poured far more time into creating, but who are not invested enough in an issue to offer constructive advice, engage in genuine discourse or mobilize action of their own.

The absence of face-to-face contact or real-time responses in electronic debates makes it simple for critics to get in their jab and then check out of the conversation before being forced to engage with contenders. When forums for genuine two-sided conversations can occur on topics as controversial as Rumsfeld’s appointment to the Hoover Institution and as comical as the dinosaur cartoon theme of Kimball Hall, it is extremely disappointing that cursory electronic criticism remains a fact of life, and particularly troubling that it was used in response to last week’s forum on the Jena-6.

From a moral standpoint, criticisms launched against a panel for discussing Jena-6 stand out amongst the crowds of unconstructive critical emails as particularly odious. It is a pity that students who hold skeptical views about the moral implications of Jena-6, an event that has provoked one of the largest civil justice marches in years, are satisfied to criticize from the sidelines instead of taking to time to engage in the debate that they criticize.

While genuine criticism can add meaning and depth to campus life, questioning the need or importance of a panel discussing Jena-6 without taking the time to engage in those discussions is an action that embodies the ignorance and institutional racism that we praised the organizers and participants of the Jena-6 panel for fighting.