"Your editorial regarding my presentation to the Honor Committee Sunday ("Reaching Out," Oct. 21) included several fairly substantial errors... A little proof-reading and fact-checking can go a long way when writing an editorial, and it is hard to believe that serious thought was given to the matter when so many basic errors were made." Any letter to the editor that begins with that first sentence and ends with the second is bound to get an ombudsman's attention. Especially when the editorial endorsed a group the letter writer is supporting.
Sam Leven's letter said The Cavalier Daily's editorial got all kinds of things wrong, beginning with the name of the group Leven spoke for at an Honor Committee meeting. It's called the "Accused Outreach Program," not the "Student Outreach Program." "It may just be a name," Leven wrote, "but it seems irresponsible to make so basic an error." Irresponsible? Perhaps. Wrong? Certainly.
"I have to admit making the error on this name," Executive Editor Ross Lawrence e-mailed in response to my questions about Leven's letter. Lawrence said his notes show that he wrote down "student" instead of "accused" while interviewing Honor Chair David Truetzel over the phone. Lawrence said he's not sure if Truetzel misspoke or he misheard. But Lawrence did say he should have verified the name, particularly since the news story that ran in The Cavalier Daily had the name right. Lawrence could have - and should have - double checked the name.
That's the kind of mistake that plants doubt in readers' minds. If they can't get the name right, folks are entitled to wonder, what else have they gotten wrong? But it's a mistake. People make mistakes. Lawrence owned up to this one and identified a way to keep from repeating it. That's about all that can be reasonably expected. Leven's second complaint isn't quite so clear cut. He wrote that "the AOP has absolutely nothing to do with Hoos Against Single Sanction or anything like HASS. HASS was an advocacy organization, AOP is a support group. AOP does not fill any kind of 'void' that may or may not have been left by HASS, as HASS never sought to assist students presently suffering through the honor system."
The editorial was pretty clear on the advocacy/support group question. It said Hoos Against single Sanction "served as a watchdog group, whereas the Student Outreach Program focuses on counseling and advising students." The question of whether AOP fills a void left by the dissolution of HASS is an opinion, not a verifiable fact. In Leven's view, there's no logical connection between the groups. But the connection made in the editorial isn't about their role in the honor system per se, it's about their role in the University community. Like HASS, the editorial said, AOP "offers students a different perspective on the honor system." That certainly seems true. The system seems to think the system works. The AOP seems to think the system works poorly, at best. I would call those different perspectives.
Leven's third complaint is that the AOP didn't ask for the Committee's endorsement. The group doesn't want the Committee to refer students to the AOP; it just wants the Committee to inform students of the AOP's existence. Leven was quoted saying as much in the news story about his presentation. But according to that same story, "A member of the group, who is a convicted student from the University and wished to remain anonymous, said the group contacted the Committee via e-mail and suggested that it be used as a referral group Honor advisers could suggest to accused students, similar to CAPS." So there seems to be some disagreement among the groups spokespeople about whether the AOP wants referrals.
Leven maintains that the Committee's informing students about the AOP wouldn't be an endorsement. But Committee Chairman David Truetzel has a different opinion. "Even handing out fliers [about the support group] to students is itself a kind of implicit endorsement and would not be a prudent move," Truetzel has said. Lawrence said he talked to Truetzel to verify that.
"I said that it appeared the Committee thought it unwise to notify accused students of the AOP, because it might come across as an endorsement of a group over which the Committee has no oversight," Lawrence e-mailed to me. According to Lawrence, "Truetzel responded, 'Exactly.'" So I wouldn't call that an error, either.
Finally, Leven wrote that the AOP has no way to reach students. "Advertising can only go so far," Leven wrote. Well, it's kept the consumer economy afloat for a good long while, so advertising must have some power. It would be easier for the AOP to achieve its goals if the Committee helped the group spread the word. But not everything that's worth doing is easy. The AOP may not be getting help from the Committee, but the group has already gotten its name out through The Cavalier Daily in a news story, and editorial, a letter to the editor, two strings of comments on the paper's Web site, and now this column.
Maybe a few people have heard of them now.
Tim Thornton is the The Cavalier Daily's ombudsman. His column appears on Mondays.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: You are your own limit
By Wardah Kamran | 1 hours agoMe, my staffers, we were there. And it happened. And I think that is important enough.
PARTING SHOT: When it comes to art, it pays to pay attention
By Delaney Hammond | 2 days agoEven among people who value the arts, carving out space for critical engagement with — rather than just passive consumption of — art has been an endeavor I have treasured.
PARTING SHOT: You only get what you give
By Delores Cyrus | 2 days agoThe people at this place have taught me that letting others in, while not always easy, is always worth it.
