In the March 8 edition Andre Deckrow '06 has taken to denouncing me and my criticisms of The Amherst Student rather than addressing the failed journalism in The Student's attacks on BusinessWeek's William Symonds' reportorial accuracy in his article on Amherst in the February 27 issue of BusinessWeek.
But, worse yet, The Student's editors and reporters have deliberately decided not to publish in the March 8 edition any new information in what should be a major developing story for the Amherst campus.
So let me share with your readers information that The Student's Editor-in-Chief Andrew Bruns '07 should have published in the March 8 issue.
1.) Mr. Bruns should have admitted in print what he admitted to me in an e-mail: that he tried once to get Mr. William Symonds' reaction to the charges leveled against him by sending an e-mail to the BusinessWeek customer service in search of Mr. Symonds' e-mail or telephone. I responded to Mr. Bruns by pointing out to him that a call to the BusinessWeek New York offices would have brought him to an operator who would have happily turned over to him Mr. Symonds' Boston telephone number and e-mail address (that's how I found it). Or, he could have called the Amherst College Office of Public Affairs which helped Mr. Symonds with the story.
Mr. Bruns seems to have known that accusing someone of "sensationalism" and worse probably merits a telephone call seeking comment-but he is unwilling to admit in print that his efforts to get that reaction were feeble in the extreme.
2.) Had Mr. Bruns contacted Mr. Symonds prior to the publication of his article and editorial, he would have found out that Mr. Symonds would have offered to come to the Amherst Campus and hold a public session wherein he would discuss the information he published.
3.) Mr. Bruns failed to report in print whether or not he had questioned either the College Public Relations Office or any current trustee on what numbers President Tony Marx shared with them about either the number of new students to be recruited or the cost of the effort. Mr. Symonds did not make those numbers up. He was given them by the Marx administration and, of course, STANDS BY HIS STORY. EMPHATICALLY.
Student journalism doesn't get any sloppier, or more embarrassing, than this.
But, having just read a New York Times story in their March 8 issue on the tireless and brilliant student reporters at Montgomery Blair High in Silver Springs, Maryland, I know that quality student journalism is alive and flourishing.
It just isn't doing very well at Amherst College.
Dick Hubert '60
Editor's Note: The Amherst Student has always invited letters to the editor. And like most newspapers we print any letter that is timely, respectful and meets our word limit. A cursory glance at recent letters to the editor will make it clear that The Student has no qualms about printing extremely critical letters to the editor. We prefer all letters to run without comment from The Student, but in extreme cases we must reply lest we give the impression of validating inaccurate criticisms.
In this case it should be noted that The Student contacted Mr. Hubert several times in order to correct factual and logical errors in the original version of the above letter. Our aim is not to argue with the writer; rather, we wish to set the record straight by printing the truth.
Given the fact that Mr. Hubert is the only reader of The Student to criticize our coverage of the BusinessWeek article, we believe our readership recognizes that Mr. Bruns' article and the staff editorial did not unduly criticize aspects of Mr. Symonds' article. In fact, we have received e-mails and op-ed pieces from students and alumni denouncing Mr. Symonds' portrayal.
As for Mr. Hubert's latest claims, it is true that Mr. Bruns was unable to contact Mr. Symonds for comment due to time constraints, but as Mr. Bruns' article chronicled student reaction to the BusinessWeek piece, we felt that Mr. Symonds' commentary was not necessary. Furthermore, Mr. Bruns has since contacted Mr. Symonds via phone and e-mail. Mr. Symonds has in fact graciously offered to speak at the College, but not to debate the accuracy of his article as Mr. Hubert insinuates. Rather, Mr. Symonds is interested in a discussion about more important and educationally valuable issues such as what the Amherst student body should look like in the future.
Finally, Mr. Hubert has misconstrued our charge of sensationalism. President Marx has made it clear that the numbers in Mr. Symonds' article are not an accurate depiction of the College's final plan, but it was the description of class and race at Amherst which we questioned. In fact, we never claimed that Mr. Symonds "[made] those numbers up," as Mr. Hubert suggests. That would be lying, not sensationalizing. In reality, we simply posited that the BusinessWeek numbers and quotes were extremes.
We appreciate Mr. Hubert's continued interest in this issue; however, the College does not benefit from a discussion dissecting a month-old article. We feel it is time to consider the salient and debatable aspects of the CAP report.