Controversy has surrounded The Dartmouth's decision this past year to publish the names of students who were arrested on felony charges. Supporter's of The D's decision point out that other local publications had already made the names available to the general public. Critics argue that identifying defendants who have not been convicted violates the principle of presumed innocence, and permanently damages the reputations of the accused.
To understand the gravity of consequences that can stem from premature identification, I turned to the infamous Duke University lacrosse scandal, a 2006 incident in which college students' lives were changed forever after they were publicly identified in connection with serious criminal charges.
While the Duke scandal is quite different in nature from the numerous drug-related incidents on campus this past year, the aftermath of the case provides us with invaluable lessons. After several Duke lacrosse players were arrested on rape charges, their names were publicized and attached to the accusations. News networks nationwide covered the incident, disclosing the names of the students. The Duke daily student newspaper, The Chronicle, published the defendants' names in numerous articles, including a comprehensive "Lacrosse Scandal Timeline" (April 26, 2006) which reported in excruciating detail the accused students' alleged actions on the day in question.
When it was finally discovered that the accusations brought against the Duke students were fabricated, it was too late the damage was permanent. Shortly after the charges were brought against the lacrosse players, the head coach resigned, and the remainder of the season was cancelled. Professors gave some of the accused students failing grades as a means of vilification, which were not revised until the students sought legal action. Two of the students transferred to other schools.
We cannot control the damage caused by other news outlets, but that shouldn't stop us from holding on to the principle that our fellow students are innocent until proven guilty, especially in cases of serious charges such as drug possession or rape.
In their coverage of the Duke scandal, many news outlets demonstrated that it is possible to protect the identity of persons potentially involved in a crime and still provide accurate news reporting: in accordance with the news policies for reporting rape victims, the identity of the accuser was protected. Many sources continued to protect the accuser's identity even after the charges were determined to be false. If these news sources were able to report on the story without disclosing the name of a key individual involved (the victim), then there is no reason they had to disclose the names of individuals who had been charged but not convicted of crimes related to the incident.
The lasting impact of the charges on the Duke lacrosse players' lives is directly related to the incomplete and ultimately inaccurate manner in which the story was reported. For accusations as dire as felony charges, a news article identifying students as defendants in a criminal case cannot possibly provide a comprehensive context. Students are identified by name as potential criminals, along with speculation on their involvement in the crime which is rarely in their favor if they have already been arrested. These reports don't always provide us with a full picture of the details surrounding a criminal investigation. And while crime as it happens is certainly news, providing the names of the accused before they are convicted is a breach of journalistic ethics. We should allow our judicial system to make rulings on the alleged actions of students rather than putting them on the proverbial stand to have our readership judge them in advance.
If other media outlets decide to publish the names of Dartmouth students who are arrested for felony crimes, that is their prerogative. Most major media outlets are far more concerned with their ratings or readership than with journalism ethics. The D may not be able to prevent the damage that will result from coverage by other media sources, but it can still do the right thing and protect the identities of students who have yet to be convicted of a crime. In doing so, The D would set an ethical example for other news sources.
