This is a rare occurrence at The Dartmouth Independent. As a publication built upon the value of diverse opinions and dissent, the concept of the editorial often rubs against the founding principles of this organization. This is not one of those times. The editorial board rarely agrees on any issue, however, there is one issue on which we always agree – that of journalistic integrity.

In our first, and until now, only editorial, we explained that the ethics of journalism are not a matter of complex moral equivalence, but simple and straightforward rules of truth and integrity. But there is no final authority on matters of journalistic ethics. Instead, it is the duty of members of the journalistic community to play watchdog, to keep each other honest, and to maintain the most rigorous journalistic standards. For the most part, the many Dartmouth student publications do an excellent job of adhering to these principles. On occasion, however, a publication transgresses the clear line of journalistic integrity.

This was the case of The Dartmouth on Monday, January 24, 2005 when it published an article entitled, “Chi Gam party shut down early.”

Written by Dartmouth staffer Phil Salinger ‘08, this article chronicled the events that led up to an S&S takeover of Chi Gam’s Friday night party. The article portrayed the Chi Gam brothers as insensitive to the medical dangers of their guests. In particular, Salinger’s article contended that Chi Gam brothers attempted to dissuade guests from making Good Samaritan calls.

Understandably, this article drew a rapid response from the president of Chi Gam, Stephen Clarke ‘05, whose Tuesday, January 25 letter to the editor clarified the egregious misconceptions contained in Salinger’s piece. As Clarke incisively wrote: “Any attempt to contact more of the persons involved in the tri-fold ‘Good Samaritan’ incident would have made the writing more newsworthy and less reminiscent of National Enquirer muckraking.” Clarke’s charges of The Dartmouth’s scandalous misreporting were not unique.

Innocuously placed below Clarke’s lengthy attack was a short letter to the editor written by Amy Ding ’08, whom Salinger quoted extensively in his piece. Ding adamantly disowned the quotes placed under her name, claiming them as hearsay and manipulation of her original statements. She especially refuted the statements in which she allegedly noted that Chi Gam brothers were discouraging "Good Samaritan" phone calls. In this case, The D did a fair job of clarifying any controversy relating to Salinger’s piece. The scandal, however, runs much deeper.

While The D did publish Ding’s refutation of the article, it included only a highly scaled-down version of Ding’s letter. The original letter, sent via e-mail to The Dartmouth, contained not only Ding’s denial of the controversial statements, but also a detailed account of how Salinger misled Ding and manipulated her statements. As Ding wrote in her original letter to The D, “Before I was interviewed, The Dartmouth touted this article as a harmless study on students' views about whether S and S should raid parties. My statements were misquoted for a different spin, an expose to slander Chi Gam.” In an interview with TDI, Ding stated that her consent to the interview was based solely upon the premise of an article focused on S&S policies, and that she explicitly asked Salinger not to use her quotes in connection with Chi Gam.

Although we support The D’s right to edit letters to the editor for length purposes, we cannot endorse The D’s right for blanket censorship. By excluding Ding’s damaging allegations against Salinger and The D without her prior notification or consent, The Dartmouth inherently altered the meaning of Ding’s letter. This can be seen as nothing other than an attempt to cover the failures of the writer and the editorial fact-checking process.

When we attempted to contact Salinger and Dartmouth President Colin Barry ’06, both failed to respond to our e-mails. This shirking of journalistic responsibility is nothing short of a drastic violation of basic ethics. The D's problem goes beyond the machinations of a renegade staff writer. The mere fact that The D edited Ding’s letter to protect its own reputation underscores The Dartmouth’s unwillingness to accept responsibility when it or one of its writers is in the wrong. This is an egregious violation of the most basic tenet of journalistic ethics.

The Dartmouth touts itself as Dartmouth’s premier school of journalism. However, with such neglect for the most basic journalistic standards, this cannot be the case.