Regardless of how the administration received Andrew’s column, there is a glaring omission in this Verbum: how did the column reach SAE in time for the president to comment on Andrew’s allegations PRIOR to his column’s publication? The D’s news article does not allege that the SAE president was commenting on the leaked Dartblog piece; it says he was commenting on “claims in Lohse’s statements.”

Witnesses outside Robo saw members of SAE furtively running into the D offices days before the publication of Andrew’s column. I smell foul play.

If the Dartmouth were committed to acting in good faith, they would have simply corroborated Mr. Lohse’s story with the intent of publishing a final version that was factual, balanced, and fair. By choosing to publish a secondary “news article” that seemed designed to discredit and malign the personal integrity of the columns author, the Dartmouth has woefully transgressed its stated intentions and disgraced the Dartmouth community. Whatever happened to allowing the truth to speak for itself?

I’m more surprised the D published anything written by a vengeful felon

Really, D? Why publish it al all then? You have an editorial that lies about a fraternity, and lies about the “inaction” of the administration, and yet you still publish it. It is written by a known drug abuser, convicted of witness tampering, suspended for four terms, and on three-term “medical leave” after another impending suspension, and yet you still rush to publish his work. Lohse leaked his story to Dartblog, you were embarrassed because Joe Asche called you out for sitting on the story, and you printed the story the next day. Have the backbone to tell it like it is.

@Jordan Osserman. Obviously The D showed the allegations to members of SAE in order to give them the opportunity to respond for the news story. This isn’t foul play at all. Andrew is a columnist, yes, but he’s also a student making very strong allegations, and to not give those entities (the administration and SAE) a chance to respond to such allegations would actually be foul play. No one is hiding the fact that members of SAE were consulted.

I look forward to reading opinion essays that have been ‘fact-checked’ by the D. This is a new and welcome development.

By the way, the administration’s side of the story is not a ‘fact’ against which Lohse’s claims should be measured. It’s just that … the other side of the story!

The editorial was completely factual. Have the backbone to admit your ignorance regarding the specific hazing practices he outlines or be willing to admit your own complicity in the cover-up. The administration refused to act because they didn’t believe him, didn’t want the bad press, or simply didn’t care. Attacking the author of a journalistic expose by referencing his own personal issues does nothing but further corroborate his cause. If you have no more substantial criticism than “He’s a drug addict!” or “He had a difficult experience with the law [and couldn’t have POSSIBLY learned anything from it!]” you are only further corroborating his allegations. If they cannot be discarded on their merits, they are likely factual.

There are only two possibilities: 1) Lohse’s description of hazing is 90% or more accurate or 2) Lohse made them most of them up or imagined some of them are worse than they were (you can tell a doe eyed kid to swim in a dark pool full of shit that is actually full of melted chocolate bars.. just sayin')

All the D staff who are in frats and ALL the D students in frats know the right answer. So help us all out here D staff and do some simple truthful reporting and accurate fact checking or lose your limited credibility forever.

The rest about the leaks, cocaine, and admin PR, I could not care less. What I want to see is Dartmouth students have the moral fiber to stand up and tell the truth. And its time to ask Dr. Kim for his comments.

Okay, so when (for example) Roger Lott publishes an opinion about how the administration panders to minorities or women or poor people, do you also write an accompanying article entitled “Roger Lott accuses Administration of X” complete with statistics and statements that dispute his claims, in addition to unrelated character assassination about any past crimes or wrongdoing on his part which may call his trustworthiness into question? I for one have never seen a news article that directly responded to an opinion article in the same publication on the same day that so transparently and directly sought to undermine and refute the opinion writer’s claims.

I agree that it’s silly for people to criticize you for asking the administration if he had indeed met with them, or asking SAE if the hazing incidents described did indeed happen, but to call that “fact-checking” is laughable. Of course no one in SAE would confirm that the hazing allegations were true whether they were or not, and of course the administration would not say they simply ignored these claims whether they had or not. Fine. Present their statements. But don’t pretend that a) you always allow the targets of accusations published in your opinion OR news pieces a chance to respond and confirm or deny the veracity of the statements therein prior to publication; b) the allegations from Lohse were given anywhere near the same weight or credence in your article as the statements given by the targets of said allegations; or c) your grand finish in the accompanying news article that painstakingly detailed his criminal past was not an implicit indication of whose side you’re on.

Finally, it’s almost an insult to your readers to feign such an interest in integrity when every D writer I know is slobbering at the bit to get a leaked e-mail, sensitive information they shouldn’t have access to, or jump on a story before anyone else can, and “fact-checking” be damned when it’s a particularly juicy one.(Please note: I am using your definition of “fact-checking” here as meaning “showing the target of soon-to-be-published serious allegations the claims that have been lodged against them and giving them a chance to respond before publication”).

“leaked to an independent blog operated by a Dartmouth alumnus”

Gee, I wonder what that would be. Would you enlighten us?

The D has it all wrong. I have never heard of an ‘opinion’ piece having to be ‘fact-checked.’ Please look up the definitions of ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’ in the dictionary. The proper journalistic channel for SAE to defend themselves would be to write an opinion piece of their own in the D, telling us all exactly what goes on in their basement if it’s not what Andrew alleges. SAE, we are still waiting! Your monosyllabic denial of allegations that call for a slightly more detailed response, to say the least, and your attacks on Andrew’s character (which is irrelevant anyway) only serve to confirm the allegations.

Did anyone fact check David Spalding, April Thompson, Chief Giacconne or Brendan Mahoney? Did the D interview others who knew them at the time to see if they were telling the truth? NO. This was an attack against Andrew Lohse and an attempt to cover up the ugly truth on this campus that frats haze and the Administration allows it to happen. David Spalding tipped Mahoney off and told him the PD would be watching them in the BEMA so obviously they changed their plans. We need a mass resignation of David Spalding, April Thompson, Charlotte Johnson, Chief Giacconne and Jim Kim. Let’s clean house so we can save Dartmouth.