To the Editor,
I write in response to Shruthi Deivasigamani’s Sept. 24 column “Called out by name,” in which she argues against the publication of the names of students who are arrested on campus for what she calls “passive” crimes. Ms. Deivasigamani’s view is both misinformed and incorrect.
The role of a campus newspaper is to report the facts. The facts, in this case, were that a student was arrested on campus after a Department of Public Safety officer reportedly found the student in possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. Among the drugs reported to have been in the student’s possession was psilocybin, a controlled substance under state and federal law, the possession of which — as the column points out — is an indictable offense under New Jersey law (equivalent to what’s called a felony in other states). Once the editors of the ‘Prince’ determined that this story was newsworthy, there is simply no reason that the ‘Prince’would be compelled to withhold the student’s name; indeed, publication of the names of persons arrested for crimes (other than minors) is the practice of every major newspaper in the country, including The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post. As Ms. Deivasigamani notes, the fact of the student’s arrest is a matter of public record, reported on the Public Safety website and on the crime blotter of local newspapers like The Princeton Packet. The details of such arrests (including arrestees’ names) are routinely reported in the press because the public casino online has an interest both (i) in knowing what crimes are reported to have been committed in the community and who is accused of having committed those crimes, and (ii) in the transparency of the public’s interactions with law enforcement.
Contrary to what Ms. Deivasigamani suggests, it does not serve that interest to wait months or even years for a criminal conviction to result before publishing the name of someone arrested for a criminal offense. There are many reasons a criminal conviction may not ultimately result from an arrest — for instance, because a prosecutor exercises his discretion not to pursue a case, because he reaches a plea deal with a criminal defendant or because there is simply not enough evidence to meet the demanding “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. However, that does not mean the fact of the arrest and the events leading up to it are not newsworthy.
Nevertheless, Ms. Deivasigamani believes that the ‘Prince’ should self-censor and excise the names of students from its news stories — at least, those students arrested for “passive” crimes, whatever that means. Her only apparent reason for advocating this position is that Princeton is “filled with ambitious students who undoubtedly want to do important things with their lives.” However, Ms. Deivasigamani’s concern for the employment and career prospects of her classmates surely does not outweigh the public’s right to be informed. That concern, if anything, is certainly is not “the role of [a] newspaper.”
Carlos M. Lazatin ’99
Read More
Deciding disciplinary matters by popular vote of the faculty sets a harmful precedent
Jonathan Mummolo"In short, fairness demands that all members of the Princeton community be subject to a common set of rules and procedures. We are all meant to be granted equal protection under these rules. Our established procedures for disciplinary matters do not call for a full faculty vote."
"In short, fairness demands that all members of the Princeton community be subject to a common set of rules and procedures. We are all meant to be granted equal protection under these rules. Our established procedures for disciplinary matters do not call for a full faculty vote."
Princeton, practice what you preach: SPIA graduate students on protest and dialogue
Guest Contributors"As policy students, we are appalled by the blatant hypocrisy of the University administration, which has relied on fear-mongering and false narratives to discredit student protestors. We are increasingly disillusioned with the dissonance of what we are taught in our classrooms and the University’s actions."
"As policy students, we are appalled by the blatant hypocrisy of the University administration, which has relied on fear-mongering and false narratives to discredit student protestors. We are increasingly disillusioned with the dissonance of what we are taught in our classrooms and the University’s actions."
Faculty call on the Board of Trustees to act in face of hunger strike
Guest Contributors“The Princeton University administration should understand that the law loses its moral force when it becomes so detached from ethics and basic human decency. The administration is sacrificing its moral sense and its purported affiliation to human decency in the name of upholding arbitrarily designed and implemented campus rules and regulations.”
“The Princeton University administration should understand that the law loses its moral force when it becomes so detached from ethics and basic human decency. The administration is sacrificing its moral sense and its purported affiliation to human decency in the name of upholding arbitrarily designed and implemented campus rules and regulations.”
