Letter from the Editor: Addressing the Claims of Libel and an Abuse of Power

In the Nov. 9 issue of The Hill News, co-Managing Editor, Nicholle Gotham ’20, depicted a Thelmo presidential candidate as unqualified due to misbehaviors handled by the St. Lawrence administration in Spring 2017. A response was issued to Ms. Gotham’s article, Problematic Votes, claiming Ms. Gotham abused her power as an editor. THN was further accused of libel. I write this letter in defense of THN and in clarification of the measures taken by Ms. Gotham to publish her article.

Ms. Gotham proposed the op-ed to our editorial staff on Monday, Nov. 5. However, upon learning from Associate Dean of Student Life Rance Davis that the candidate couldn’t officially run due to their judicial history, Ms. Gotham messaged myself and co-Managing Editor, Robert Davies ’19, stating that she was no longer writing the article. Despite the ruling of the administration, the candidate decided to instead run as an unofficial write-in candidate. Ms. Gotham then notified Rance Davis and the editorial board that she would be writing the article.

Ms. Gotham’s article was later approved by myself and THN’s advisor, Professor Juraj Kittler. Our Editorial Policy states “The Hill News will not publish personal attacks against other students, regardless of the identity of either student,” yet we collectively determined that Ms. Gotham’s article was not a personal attack. This is because the candidate made themselves a public persona by campaigning for Thelmo president, thus subjecting themselves to debate and criticism.

Professor Kitler drew parallels to the ‘Birther Movement’ when media outlets requested President Obama’s birth certificate in question of his citizenship. A public persona, Obama was vulnerable to this criticism from the media. Problematic Votes was published based on this reasoning. There was no abuse of power by Ms. Gotham in the layout process. Ms. Gotham additionally referenced legitimate violations against the candidate that had been officially resolved by the SLU administration. No false accusations were made, hence the article was not considered libel.

Needless to say, there were several flaws in the article’s language that must be addressed. The article’s vague phrasing created the false impression that the candidate may have committed acts of physical or sexual harassment. I want to make it clear that the case of harassment outlined in Problematic Votes was strictly verbal. No acts of physical or sexual harassment occurred between the two parties. Such acts also did not occur on a daily basis, as Ms. Gotham’s article falsely suggested.

The article additionally drew similarities between the candidate and President Donald Trump. Since the 1980s, President Trump has been accused of sexual harassment by 19 women. It was wrong to make even the slightest comparison between the candidate and Mr. Trump, as such resemblance is not only misleading, but simply does not exist.

Ms. Gotham’s article equally stated the Spring 2017 events barred the candidate from study abroad opportunities. This assertion was false.

The original aim of the article was to inform student voters. There was no intent to publicize misleading assumptions that would damage an individual’s reputation and negatively impact their future. It is for this reason that Ms. Gotham’s article has been removed from TheHillNews.org. It is overwhelmingly evident that we weren’t thorough enough in our revisions of Problematic Votes and, as editors, we hold ourselves accountable.

Furthermore, the article has prompted debate regarding THN’s editorial policy and what is considered acceptable for publishing when a mentioned individual is a public persona. As a result, THN will be revising its constitution to suitably adapt its editorial policy. Both parties involved in Problematic Votes will be included in this process to implement a policy considerate of both perspectives. All students are equally welcome to contribute to the discussion, and can do so by contacting hillnews@stlawu.edu or any of our social media accounts. We are a paper led by students, for students. All are, and always have been, unconditionally welcome to contribute to the campus-wide discussion. It is unfortunate that it often takes conflict to reinforce these essential principles.