Heintz's response

Carlos Mejia wrote in to The D yesterday arguing that the publication of the names of the candidates for Dean of the College was irresponsible and improper.
Paul Heintz wrote in today arguing that Carlos was pushing for censorship of his beloved D (which sponsored his sporadically amusing comic strip Guy and Fellow, thereby feeding his megalomania. Unfortunately, the DFP may have had a hand in that feeding as well, supporting him in his ultimately unsuccessful run for SA President.) Censorship, however nasty a word, was not the point, of course, but Heintz's careful reconstruction of the piece (and by careful reconstruction, I mean hatchet job) made it seem like it was.

Regardless, Heintz’s column represented everything that is wrong about the paper that he once worked for. Heintz displayed all the self-importance and preeningly purposeless aggressiveness that led to The Dartmouth’s decision to print those names. Without blinking, Heintz arrogates to his former paper the same status and sense of natural right that a national newspaper has, justifying its actions by equating them with wartime reporting.

On the contrary, The Dartmouth’s decision to print those names owes more to yellow journalism and tabloids than it does to Christiane Amanpour. And while its staff can chant “independent organization” all it wants, it does not change the fact that the staff of The Dartmouth still has responsibilities outside its (College-owned) walls.

That mantra, however—that The Dartmouth is independent of the College—buries the deeper truth of the matter. While the organization is independent of the College, its students are not. The Dartmouth routinely relies on this separation of identity to expand their sense of entitlement and quash any sense that they are still our peers. This independence allows them a sense of privilege, giving them a totally different set of responsibilities simply because they have a notepad in hand.

The Dartmouth staff should remember that they are students of Dartmouth first, journalists second. And while that certainly doesn’t mean blind loyalty to the administration, it does mean due consideration of the effects of one’s actions. Such consideration was notably lacking last week, and in many weeks before.