Clark defends his perspective in General Faculty reporting

I write this Staff Box as a response to Professor of Economics Robert Pirons' published criticism of my Sept. 10 article "Faculty Speak Their Minds on Chartering Process." Mr. Piron threw down his gauntlet, and I gladly accept his invitation to address his letter. I refute his claim that I "editorialized" and allowed my article to reflect my opinion.

First of all, I would like to accept total responsibility for the article. Mr. Piron addressed not only myself in the article but also the editors of the Review. He stated that what I did was "such an amateurish blunder that I wonder why the editors didn't edit it out." Well, as co-editor in chief of the Review, my fellow co-editor, Rossiter Drake, and I have final say on what appears in the paper. So, let me just clear that up and say that as both writer and editor I take responsibility for the article.

Mr. Piron claims that the first thing reporters learn is the difference between reporting and editorializing. He criticized my article for supposedly taking a non-objective stance toward the Sept. 7 General Faculty meeting. My question for Mr. Piron is, what exactly is objectivity? I do not think that total objectivity really exists in any published periodical or journal. No matter how much an author strives for objectivity, he or she still injects a certain amount of personal opinion into his or her work. By simply deciding to cover the meeting I expressed an opinion. Why not cover another public meeting? Mr. Piron did not accuse me of misstating any facts, misquoting him or taking his words out of context. I stand by my reporting of the facts in the story. So, I think that leaves only one question to be answered: how much of an opinion is expressed in the article?

Well, Mr. Piron seems to think that I allowed my opinion to run rampant on the front page of the Review, and he also believes that my opinion is contrary to his own. He said, "If his opinions differed from Scofield's and mine he should have written a piece on the issues which separated us in the editorial section of the paper." Ironically enough, I did just that in the same issue, except my opinion agreed with Mr. Piron. I authored an editorial that criticized the planned changes to the student organization chartering process and clearly denounced the proposed changes. I even referred to one of Mr. Piron's points made during the meeting to shore up my editorial. Even though the editorial was not directly attributed to myself, my name did appear at the top of it with the rest of the editorial staff.

Let me take a closer look at what Mr. Piron referred to in his letter. I labeled Mr. Scofield's criticism of the proposal a "knee-jerk." I also called Piron's opinion "sharply cynical" and described Mr. Piron as being "perched atop the very last row of King 106." (Actually, I said he was perched atop the very last row of King 306, which is where the meeting took place, contrary to Mr. Piron's reference.) As a writer, I like to recreate the setting for a meeting or activity that I am trying to describe to my readers. I do not think that it was "factually germane" to the article to describe Mr. Piron's choice of seating. However, I do think that it helped to give the reader a sense of context for the meeting. Besides, it is not the first time that Mr. Piron sat in the last row of King 306 during a General Faculty meeting. He sat in the same row, and I would venture the same seat, at the May 18 General faculty meeting. I know. I stood right behind him for most of the meeting.

Unfortunately, not everyone who will read this was present for the Sept. 7 General Faculty meeting. I was there, as well as Mr. Piron. Cynicism may be a debatable trait, but I think he displayed it or a fungible characteristic of equal ferocity. I thought so much of his perceived cynicism that I mentioned it in the article. Mr. Piron's tone of voice or inflection can not be recreated in print. I felt the best way to portray Mr. Piron's contribution to the meeting was by describing his actions for my readers. If President Dye criticized a faculty member during a public meeting, I think it would be acceptable for a newspaper to describe her actions as "harsh" or "disrespectful" even though they are subjective observations.

The only mistake I am guilty of making is being overzealous with my description of the General Faculty meeting. I attempt a certain amount of creativity in my writing, and I may have gotten caught up in that when I tried to put my observations into print. Unless every journalist in the free world starts presenting his or her reports in tabular format with facts and quotes, Mr. Piron's request for objectivity will remain unsatisfied. Until then, I will have to let the words in between those facts and quotes remain.

Benjamin Clark, co-editor-in-chief, Oberlin Review