We can’t print his name. You all know it anyway. The topic of fervent discussion on campus for the past month, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named was charged with criminal sex conduct following reported sexual assaults involving two other Gustavus students to the St. Peter Police Department.
To be clear, he has not been convicted of any crimes. His first day in court was scheduled for March 1. For clarity’s sake, the not-so-mysterious Gustie will now be referred to as (REDACTED).
This is not a piece speculating on the alleged crimes or the Gustavus administration’s response. This is a piece about The Gustavian Weekly’s mishandling of a matter of public knowledge. This is a piece about freedom of speech and self-censorship.
The value of free speech and the free exchange of information is evident in this story’s very inception. It was only after the publications of St. Peter Herald reporter Dana Melius’ and Mankato Free Press reporter Nancy Madsen’s Feb. 2 articles about the charges against (REDACTED) that the wider Gustavus community became aware of the Dec. 13th incident.
Students previously unaware of the sexual assault allegations shared the articles on social media, and the story spread like wildfire.
The St. Peter Herald and Mankato Free Press articles sparked renewed debate at Gustavus regarding sexual assaults on college campuses and administrative responses to these allegations.
This is, as always, an immeasurably critical discussion for the collegiate community. Free speech and the free exchange of information enabled students to engage knowledgeably about important events occurring on their campus.
The St. Peter Herald identified (REDACTED) by name, and included his age and hometown, as well as his status as a Gustavus student. So did the Mankato Free Press. These news publications found compelling reasons to publish the charges and to identify the person against whom they were filed. The Gustavian Weekly, however, chose differently.
The Gustavian Weekly refused to print his name, despite it being a matter of public record and having appeared in multiple local news sources. The Gustavian Weekly editorial board argued that the close-knit nature of the Gustavus campus prevents us from reporting the full facts of a story relevant to the community. One can’t help but wonder which members of the “close-knit” community The Gustavian Weekly is seeking to protect.
I can’t print his name, because The Gustavian Weekly doesn’t want to rock the boat. In The Gustavian Weekly’s official statement on the issue of reporting the name of (REDACTED), the editorial staff stated: “We are a small community, and this can potentially be a very precarious situation.” What precarity they have in mind is unstated.
But I believe they are correct. This is a precarious situation. The precariousness of the situation lies in our fair-weathered commitment to free speech and freedom of the press.
The precariousness of the situation lies in our fickle commitment to sharing important information with community members. This situation is a matter of public concern and public record.
The Gustavian Weekly’s commentary on the incident is protected speech, so long as we do not slander or libel anyone. Reporting the facts of charges filed against a member of our community is not libel. Newspapers concerned with informing their communities do so every day.
Perhaps most distressing of all, this decision by The Gustavian Weekly reflects a conscious, knowing, and intentional choice to fail to fulfil our mission of “bringing the community comprehensive coverage of the news and events affecting our campus.”
Sadly, it appears The Gustavian Weekly no longer understands what “comprehensive” means. Or does not believe that this event affects our community.
Additionally, the stated purpose of The Gustavian Weekly is “a service to the college community in general and the student body in particular.” By refusing to fully and honestly report a matter of public record that is of intense interest and substantial importance on campus, The Gustavian Weekly fails to serve the student body.
It is easy to forget that The Gustavian Weekly is a paper by the students, for the students. We choose what we publish, not administrators on campus, newspaper faculty advisers or others. In this case, the editorial board has chosen poorly. It has chosen to prioritize the comfort of some over the safety of others.
We should accurately report the facts involved in a criminal investigation pertaining to members of our community. When we engage in self-censorship, we fail to serve our readers and our mission.
Reporting on crimes, particularly sexual assault and involving members of our community, is difficult. While the editors may well be sincere in their concern for fairness and respect for all parties involved, they are refusing to print a name that is already part of the public record. It is unclear what principle of fairness is implicated here.
There are difficult conversations happening all across the nation as students, administrators, and politicians grapple with sexual assault on college campuses.
The Gustavian Weekly must be a full and honest contributor to the discussions already happening on social media and in dorm rooms about cases that hit close to home.
Unfortunately, the decision in this instance violates that principle. Those seeking newspapers that uphold that principle here might instead choose to read the St. Peter Herald or Mankato Free Press.