To the Editor:
The members of The Dartmouth's editorial board need to once again unclog the foot from their collective mouth. The house editorial "Research Must Precede Reform" (May 5, 1995) is so unresearched in terms of its facts, one must wonder if the editors did not fabricate the editorial on purpose for cruel and mean-spirited reasons.
Firstly, in the article "Coalitions formed to examine COS" (May 4, 1995) I am quoted as describing the group of students working with Emily Stephens '97 as a "group of concerned students." Yet, in the editorial, the group is described as being led by Rukmini Sichitiu '95 and myself. Also, in a phone conversation with President of The Dartmouth Justin Steinman on Tuesday, May 2 and in an interview with a reporter on Wednesday, May 3, 1995, I reiterated, along with Ms. Sichitiu, that the coalition has no leader.
Secondly, I would like to point out that the reporter also took my quotes out of context when he wrote, "Chiu said the group was going to reform COS ," and quoted me as saying, "We're just going to do it."
What I said to him was that we, as in the members of the coalition, were going to form a committee to review COS, that members of the committee would be composed of coalition members and that we were just going to do it and not wait for formal recognition of the committee.
But these errors are the least of all objectionable mistakes in your editorial.
Lastly, and most importantly, the whole house editorial is based on the premise that the coalition is "pushing for radical reform too quickly without properly researching the issues." Well, if the senior editors of The Dartmouth did their research, they would have found out that I met with Deans Lee Pelton and Mary Turco on Tuesday, May 2, the day after the coalition met for the first time. I also met with Senior Class Dean Lisa Thum on Thursday, May 4. Ms. Sichitiu met with Deans Pelton and Holly Sateia. David Gonzalez '95, another coalition member, has met with Deans Turco and Goldsmith. And the coalition as a whole has met with Liza Veto. If this isn't working with administrators and proceeding "properly," then I fail to understand your definition of such. Why editors would think the coalition is not working with administrators surprises me because I specifically listed all the administrators with whom we spoke for the reporter in a phone conversation after the interview.
On top of all this terrible misconstruction of the truth is the fact that Emily Stephens gave The Dartmouth not only an interview, which never appeared in The Dartmouth, but she also wrote a detailed letter to the editor regarding the factual errors of the article.
As the former editor, I know The Dartmouth will not print my letter because it is terribly afraid of criticism. That has already been made clear to the community at large. But I must tell you how ashamed and appalled I am that you let your personal feelings toward me affect the coverage you provide the community.
Certainly, members of this community deserve better standards of journalism. To play up the story of division between coalitions and not to tell the real story of a great many concerned students coming forward to support Emily Stephens '97 is truly despicable.
