"Interesting article, kumquat."
Picture this: You've written a column advocating the abolition of Presidents' Day and the return to celebrating Lincoln's and Washington's birthdays and one favorable response refers to a small, orange-like fruit.
Reader responses to columns can sometimes be a little different.
Usually reader replies are article-specific, but many responses are a general expression of support or opposition. One Facebook message informed me, "I like your columns. Keep it up. Stick it to the man!"
I'm not entirely sure what that last part means, but hopefully I continued to do so.
It's often difficult to predict which subjects will draw the most feedback. Quick quiz: Which subject do you think would spark the strongest reactions from people: the 2008 election, abortion, Iran or global warming?
Abortion would have been my guess, but I heard very little on such a controversial subject. In response to a column on why abortion should be decided on a state-by-state basis by the voters, another student who shared my position wrote, "I just wanted to thank you for your article [about Roe v. Wade]. I think it really should be left to the voters. The way that it got through the courts was pathetic. Good article though."
When I wrote the column, I had expected to be bombarded with mail from pro-abortion groups and feminists, but there was little from those quarters.
The same silence followed a column examining why Rudy Giuliani would make an excellent president. That was one time when I expected outcries from conservative readers who might feel that the New York mayor didn't pass their litmus test. And the response? Nothing.
Surprisingly, the most reaction came from my column entitled "Public deserves entire warming debate." The article was intended to be a straightforward call for more debate.
I asserted that although the proponents of global warming state there is a consensus, there are knowledgeable observers, such as Richard S. Lindzen and Claude Allegre, who are not so quick to jump on the wagon.
All I asked for was an expansion of the debate. That column spawned several letters to the editor, an editorial board opinion and a piece from another columnist.
One letter to the editor argued, "Here are the facts. The average worldwide temperature is increasing beyond what it should naturally, in a short amount of time. We release carbon dioxide and other trace gases into the atmosphere. These trace gases trap heat from the sun in our atmosphere. Therefore, we are contributing to an abnormal increase in the Earth's temperature. Basic logic at work."
Contrast that with another letter which stated, "I have some amazing news for everyone about that scientific consensus Al Gore has been yammering on about: it doesn't exist, period. The truth is that the debate is still ongoing over the cause of climate change, and the people screaming consensus can only harm things by stifling true research in favor of politically driven studies."
One student, convinced I stood to gain financially from global warming, emailed me to ask, "What is your vested interest in this mess? Are you a large shareholder? Are you afraid the blue chip investments in your 401k will diminish?"
For the record I don't have any investments.
I have learned there is one consistency with being a columnist: the only thing predictable is that reactions can be unpredictable. Any issue, however, that provokes thought and discussion in the form of diverse reader responses is a welcomed sight to most columnists.
I hope my columns have done that in one form or another. And I want to thank all of you who took the time to craft thoughtful responses.
Hilary Wade is a political science junior, and can be reached at: hilary.wade@asu.edu.
