To the Editor:
Yesterday's letter to the editor criticizing The Dartmouth for reporting on the dumping of manure on two fraternities' lawns written by Joshua Graubart '98 and Joshua Marks '96 is based on a totally fallacious parallel.
The writers compare the printing of the article in The D to the printing of the Unabomber's manifesto by The New York Times and Washington Post last year. Their letter is based on miscalculated comparisons between the two events.
First, there is a large difference between running a news story and giving free advertisement to "vandals." The D ran an article on the dumping of the manure, an act which represented a group's criticism of and social statement against Alpha Chi Alpha and Beta Theta Phi fraternities. The Times and Post also ran articles when the Unabomber killed in the decades before -- should they not have done that? If the authors have a problem with "bowing to threats from the terrorist" because they printed his manifesto free of charge in 1995 that is their prerogative, but that is not what The D did in this instance.
Second, given The D's important role on campus to report the news and keep students informed, it is its duty to report on such incidents no matter what their nature is.Are all newspapers to shy away from reporting important incidents out of the fear that it might serve "as a mouthpiece for criminals?" Since that is what Graubart and Marks imply, then the press would be failing to live up to its important role in society. This would be a far greater threat to "the interest of public safety" than not to print them and have an uninformed public.
Third, even if you accept the writers' conclusion that is based on an ill-conceived parallel, do you really think dumping manure on lawns and killing people out of reckless abandon can be viewed as equally offensive?
In sum, The D hardly bowed "to threats" and did not "encourage vandals by giving their anonymous opinions special attention," but rather served its role for the College community to report the news and keep students informed. Next time, Graubart and Marks should think through their parallels and think about the facts before criticizing others.
