This does not absolve newspapers from getting as many of the relevant facts as they can before printing a story. It does recognize, however, that getting all the facts may not be possible. If several sources confirm a statement, and if a good faith effort has been made to get all sides of a story, it is justified to print it.

In this case, The Crimson relied on the words of not one or two, but seven students in the department.

Ellison and Chesson both imply in their letters that it is irresponsible journalism to use a person's name in a story in which he or she refuses to comment. But, logically extended, this seems to be a difficult proposition to sustain. By this rationale for instance, if Tonya Harding refused to comment on the attack on Nancy Kerrigan, it would be irresponsible to print her name in any story related to the incident. Or, without President Nixon's comments, It was careless to name him in stories about Watergate.

Having said this, I would probably not have named Meredith Chesson in the original article. My argument for this position is not that she refused to speak to our reporters, but rather that The Crimson did not have official documentation of a supposedly "formal" complaint.

In his letter, Ellison is very concerned with the principles of confidentiality and due process--and The Crimson's lack of respect for them. Yet Ellison himself disclosed to our reporters details of a supposedly confidential meeting that he held with graduate students in the archaeology wing.

And Chesson's response to a call from one of our reporters," I have no statement to make whatsoever," seems to contradict the tone of her letter--in which she writes that had the reporters asked. "I would have told them that I had never filed a complaint of sexual harassment against any faculty members in the archaeology wing."

None of the above is meant to exonerate The Crimson from all blame in its coverage of the archaeology wing. For a start, naming Chesson in the original story was unnecessary. And some of the paper's subsequent coverage has had problems.

Most importantly, the staff editorial, "Investigate Charges," which appeared in Wednesday's paper, is inaccurate in one respect. It claims that Margot N. Gill, the GSAS's dean of student affairs who is responsible for handling cases of sexual misconduct, has "not even launched a perfunctory investigation into the allegations against van der Merwe."

The Crimson simply does not know this for sure. Our reporters recognize as much.

Gill has refused to discuss the issues with them, and other people could not know for certain whether or not she has investigated the allegations.

Further, the editor's note responding to Chesson's letter, is also inaccurate when it says that "Crimson reporters contacted Chesson and asked her about the complaint." The reporter who called did not get to ask about the complaint per se, Chesson declined to comment the minute he mentioned "sexual harassment." And, especially in an issue as delicate as this one, it was extremely poor form to misspell Chesson's first name in the attribution to her letter.

In my view, avoidable errors in subsequent coverage have damaged The Crimson's credibility on a story that was as initially reported, strong.

Most of these errors have been caused by miscommunication between reporters and editors--and among departments--and must be avoided if The Crimson wishes to maintain its readers trust.

The views expressed are solely those of the author.