While The Student calls on the administration to clarify its position on socioeconomic diversity, the paper might also endeavor to clarify its own statements delivered in a curious editorial from just the week before, when it declared its intention to reform "this publication to more closely follow its two founding principals [sic]: student inclusion and independence."

While it might just be that The Student was referring to its struggle to find the proper place of a campus weekly in a world occupied by the Internet and College-sponsored press releases, it made reference to a relationship between the College and the paper that was confusing and unclear. The strange wording of the piece, in which The Student announced that the paper had become "less independent," raises many questions, especially for this former staff member, who never had a reason to question the independence of the paper. When viewed within the context of recent events at the College-such as The Student's hands-off treatment of an alleged on-campus rape (maintained until former editors publicly criticized The Student's mishandling of the situation), or in the increased public attention on Amherst as a result of the initiatives of Tony Marx-one can easily understand why the use of a phrase such as "mouthpiece for the administration," without more detail, is careless at best and leaves readers to speculate on what The Student might be referring to.

The Editorial Board should fully develop whatever points it sought to make and to shed some needed light on its choice of words.

Dave Nardolillo '98

________________________________________

Symonds deserved a voice in the debate

As a longtime reader of BusinessWeek, and an admirer of the work of BusinessWeek Boston Bureau Chief Bill Symonds, I was somewhat taken aback by The Amherst Student's characterization of his Feb. 27, 2006 print and online coverage of Amherst and President Marx as "sensationalism" and "an embellished version of President Marx's intentions."

I was further dismayed to read in your news column that President Marx is quoted as saying, "The story exaggerates tensions among students and certainly exaggerates the price that would be paid by the institution for further efforts for diversifying our student body."

So, I did something The Amherst Student's reporters and editors sloppily failed to do: I called Bill Symonds to ask for his side of the story. (I have to tell all of you at The Student that while your professors may not teach getting both sides of the story in your English classes, or in any of your other classes for that matter, it is a basic tenet of American journalism to do your homework and check with ALL RELEVANT SOURCES).

Mr. Symonds wrote me, and I quote: "Suffice it to say that my article was based on dozens of interviews at Amherst, including many conversations with (President) Marx and (Dean of Admissions) Parker over a period of many months. The goal was to present an accurate depiction of what is happening. And the numbers we used were based on what we were told; they were not exaggerated or sensationalized."

I've just gotten off the telephone with Mr. Symonds, and he is even more emphatic that what he reported was 100 percent accurate.

So I have to wonder: What made you (and President Marx?) so anxious to knock down his story?

Was it because it was better written (and better illustrated-with superior graphics) than the jumbled writing by the authors of the CAP report? Was it because BusinessWeek and Mr. Symonds announced the sum and substance of a capital fund drive before the Amherst administration could reach the alumni with their message?

Was it because having seen the end product of their months of interviews and background papers presented at last on the pages of BusinessWeek, the administration, faculty and students involved in working with Mr. Symonds are collectively having a case of cold feet?

Here's what I do know. Having been privy to President Marx's presentation of his plans at a Boston meeting of former Trustees last June, I know that Mr. Symonds and his BusinessWeek editors have made a better written and graphical presentation of President Marx's plans than did President Marx. And, having hosted and presented the panel Economic Inequality and College Access at the May, 2005 Reunion Weekend (with Mr. Symonds in the audience), featuring President Marx and former University of Maine President Bob Woodbury '60, I know that Mr. Symonds has conveyed the content of that seminar completely accurately.

Clearly something drastic has changed at Amherst since everyone on campus stopped talking to Mr. Symonds.

Perhaps the reporters and editors at The Student could start acting like journalists and do a thorough follow-up story, and this time include Mr. Symonds in the process. He may have a great follow-up story to write about all of you as well.

Dick Hubert '60