At first, news organizations were interested in The Crimson's editorial position, which supported Harvard's decision.

For comment on that, in my opinion, the media should have turned to Editorial Chair Daniel Altman. And some did.

Altman chaired the meeting at which that editorial position was decided. He knew best what motivated supporters and dissenters.

And, more importantly, he was in a position to speak for The Crimson's editorial page without the risk of coming across as a spokesperson for The Harvard Crimson, a news organization.

In speaking for The Crimson on a matter that the news board, of which Wright is a member, was still addressing, Wright may have put the news credibility of The Crimson in jeopardy.

Anyone in America who cared to find out would have known that the Crimson supported the administration on this issue.

So when Chan's article appeared last Thursday detailing how the administration came to its decision, it may have looked to some as if there had been foul play.

There wasn't.

Still, on national TV last Thursday morning CBS's Paula Zahn asked Wright whether The Crimson was being manipulated by the administration.

Wright, in good faith, answered no.

But how many of you were wondering the same thing?