As you will likely have noticed, three names of our peers are published in our Campus Crime section as well as in the front-page story "Student Crime Prevalent Over Weekend."
Many of our readers will criticize our decision to publish the names as it may cause further embarassment for these individuals who have no doubt already gone through a great ordeal.
That being said, we would like to explain the policy we follow when we make these decisions and the reasoning for it. Our newspaper operates under a series of policies and ethical guidelines created with the ideals of the Society of Professional Journalists in mind. We aim to seek the truth and report it, to do more good than harm, and to hold people and organizations accountable.
Our policy on reporting names of students arrested in the Campus Crime states that all students will be treated equally in that their names will be printed and they will be reached out to and provided a chance to comment on the circumstances of their arrests.
This policy is based on the regulations governing major newspapers across the country. After working with Andrew Tangel '03, who is currently a reporter at the Los Angeles Times, the editorial board, along with the news editor in the fall of 2011, was able to create the policy by which we currently operate.
If reporters and editors accepted pleas from those who have been arrested at the national level our society would be wrought with corruption. Our freedom of the press and of free information to seek and publish these records define our democracy.
Though we do not operate as a national newspaper, compromising these values even at the college level, could allow these behaviors to continue without being acknowledged, which would remove the sense of accountability and transparency on our campus.
The "bubble" that students so often reference as encapsulating campus does not protect us from the law, nor does it protect us from being held accountable by the press and by others for our actions.
We called each of the individuals listed in the Campus Crime section to let them know their name would appear and offered them a chance to comment. Though none of the three chose to comment, this opportunity can be a vital venue by which students and others can comment on the justice system. No change can be made to a dysfunctional system unless someone is willing to be the first to point out the flaws.
While it may not seem like it, these decisions are created with the greater good in mind. As a society we cannot move forward unless we acknowledge our errors and shortcomings and aim to mend them.
On a campus of such a small size these decisions are harder to make as we often know the subjects of our stories from class, organizations, or from other social circumstances. Making phone calls to men and women we likely pass on a day-to-day basis was difficult, to say the least. In making this decision we are not singling anyone out, but rather we are hoping to do the opposite. We are giving everyone the same treatment. Much as we are all equal under the law, we are all subject to scrutiny of the press.