The Chronicle of Higher Education made four three major errors in a single sentence on Friday, mangling issues of technology, due process, and sexual ethics in an online story about a student at Calvin College.
Here’s the original lead to the article, posted on their blog…
A Calvin College student has been suspended for one year over a lewd Facebook message he allegedly sent to an ex-girlfriend.
And here’s what’s wrong with it…
1. The student, Tony Harris, wasn’t suspended, he was expelled. The university called it a suspension, but according to the Grand Rapids Press he will have to re-apply after the year is up. If you’re barred from campus and told you have to apply for re-admission, you haven’t been suspended. You’ve been kicked out.
1. The problem with the Facebook posting wasn’t that it was “lewd,” but that it was found to be harassing. The policy Harris was charged under prohibits “communication that degrades or harasses individuals or groups.” Harris was accused of harassing his ex by posting a derogatory sexual message about her, not of posting something lewd.
2. He wasn’t expelled because of the Facebook incident. He was given probation over it, and told to post an apology on his Facebook page. He was expelled for refusing to apologize, and he says he refused to apologize because he wasn’t the one who put up the post.
3. The post in question was a Facebook status update, not a message to the other student.
Why does any of this matter? Because these aren’t random errors. They’re symptomatic of larger weaknesses in writing about student disciplinary matters, sexual ethics, and new technology, failings that are commonplace not just at the Chronicle, but elsewhere as well.
If you’re going to write a story like this, the details matter. The details are all that matters.
There’s a huge difference between being suspended for sending someone a smutty email and being expelled for contesting a disciplinary finding that you harassed someone in a semi-public forum. If you neglect those distinctions, you’re not getting the story. The Chronicle didn’t get this story.
Update: As reader JRH notes, Harris’s status amounts to a suspension rather than an expulsion under the terms of the Calvin College student handbook. Studentactivism.net regrets the error.
studentactivism.net 
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 15, 2009 at 2:12 pm
jrh
Wow. Are you trying to exceed the number of errors in The Chronicle article?
1. The blog says (at least now): “A Calvin College student has been suspended for one year over a lewd Facebook message he allegedly posted about an ex-girlfriend.”
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/3616/calvin-college-student-suspended-over-lewd-facebook-message
2. It’s not unreasonable to expect someone to grasp from an article lede that a lewd posting about an ex-girlfriend that led to a suspension was harassing. Seems semantical nitpicking.
3. No, according to the Calvin College Student Handbook he was suspended not expelled, since he has a defined time period after which he can reapply, if he had been expelled he could not return:
“l. College Suspension – Separation of the student from the College for a definite period of time, after which the student is eligible to return. Conditions for readmission may be specified. Parents of students shall be notified of the suspension sanction by the Senior Judicial Officer. During suspension the student is not permitted to be on Calvin College property except by prior permission by a Student Life Dean.
m. College Expulsion – Permanent separation of the student from the College. During expulsion the student is not permitted to be on Calvin College property except by prior permission by a Student Life Dean.”
Click to access student-hdbk.pdf
4. Moot.
If you’re going to write a blog like this, the details matter. The details are all that matters.
February 15, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Angus Johnston
Thanks for the comments, JRH. Let me take them one at a time:
1. They updated the article after posting it. As of this writing, you can still see the original sentence here:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&ncl=1303845093
2. A lewd message may be welcome, even from an ex. It’s not the lewdness of Harris’s (alleged) posting that got him in trouble, but the fact that it was perceived by administrators as harassing. The distinction between a message to someone and a message about someone is important here, but the distinction between welcome and unwelcome sexual speech is also important. The word “lewd” effaces that distinction.
Given that Calvin is a religious institution, the original lede could well have left the impression that Harris had been disciplined for a consensual sexual act.
3. That’s a nice catch, and I’ll update the post to reflect it.