Review recognizes editorial oversight

The Commentary section in the Dec. 10 edition of The Oberlin Review drew strong reactions from many members of the Oberlin College community. The authors of several submissions noted a series of radical, unauthorized changes in their letters - changes that completely altered the letters' meaning and undermined the authors' intentions. To the best of our knowledge, an outside party gained access to the Commentary section on our file sharing server and inserted his or her own comments into the aforementioned letters, leaving a corrupted edition for publication. Through an odd series of unusual circumstances and editorial oversights, these changes were not caught before the paper went to print.

The Review unknowingly published these letters in their adulterated state, creating an embarrassing, frustrating and altogether volatile situation for the Review and its readership. The immediate effects of these changes were disastrous. The authors of the letters could not understand why their names were attached to fragmented, bastardized versions of their original submissions and became understandably enraged. Meanwhile, readers were baffled by the inclusion of such strange and blatantly offensive material in the Commentary section, and the Review editorial staff scrambled to figure out exactly what had happened.

The staff of the Review took a proactive stance in correcting the ordeal at a point in the academic year when everyone was unprepared to deal with the situation. Because it was our last issue of the semester, we deemed it necessary to publish a formal retraction of the whole section and reissue the letters as they were originally intended by their authors. To prevent these letters from reaching an audience broader than the Oberlin campus and community, the Commentary section of the paper was pulled off our website. Finally, the Review publicly recognized its oversight in an all-campus mailing released this week.

Although this initial wave of damage control effectively began the healing process for all parties involved in this controversy, the situation still begs a variety of questions about the integrity of the Review, security within its office and the process by which an issue is created. Until now, we have traditionally granted our personnel a great deal of freedom within our computing system, a luxury we will unfortunately have to restrict in the future. We do not believe this was an inside job, but we are certain that poor security only could have contributed to the problem.

Meanwhile, the trust that has always existed between the community and our publication has suffered greatly during the past week, a dilemma that cannot be so easily remedied. Some have questioned whether offensive, destructive comments like the ones that appeared in the last issue of the Review have any place in a newspaper that claims to represent the views of its readers. It is a legitimate concern, and it speaks to an issue that has been at the forefront of American politics ever since the First Amendment was added to the Constitution back in 1791. But the staff of the Review does not condone censorship and must not be confused with the on-campus thought police. We do not always agree with the opinions expressed in the Commentary pages, and we do not endorse the brand of hate speech that infiltrated several letters in our last issue. Nevertheless, it is our responsibility to publish all letters submitted to us by our established deadline, regardless of whether or not the views expressed in those letters are popular.

Others have implied that the Review unwittingly committed an act of violence against the members of the Oberlin community by allowing these letters to go to print. To be sure, words are powerful weapons that, for better or worse, can destroy reputations and influence public opinion. And the Review finds itself in the unique position of being, as former arts editor Rumaan Alam, OC '99, once wrote, "the only form of campus discourse readily available to students, faculty and staff." That's not to say that the Review is the only on-campus publication that matters, but who can deny that it is the most prominent? As such, it provides students with a weekly opportunity to make their voices heard, to express their opinions on subjects ranging from the latest AAA meeting to the proper methods of dating Republicans. Thus, it has a responsibility to present those voices accurately, and the importance of that responsibility can never be overstated. So when the staff of the Review published three tainted letters in our last issue, we committed a grievous error that forever damaged our credibility and violated our unwritten contract with the Oberlin community. But the Review did not intentionally misrepresent the thoughts and feelings of its readers.

We hope to rebuild our credibility with this Special Edition, but we must continue to act responsibly as a source of news and discourse for the Oberlin College community.