Students' Privacy Must Take Priority

To the editors:

Daniela J. Lamas' article entitled "E-Mail Message Names Work Study Recipients" (News, Oct. 5) exhibits some of the defining traits of irresponsible journalism. I object both to Lamas' presentation of the facts and to the Crimson's choice to cover this incident in the first place.

Lamas asserts that "the lack of privacy regarding their financial aid status did not seem to bother most students affected." Did the Crimson conduct a poll of the affected students' reactions? None was cited. Apparently, Lamas bases her generalization on the opinions of four students quoted in the article, only two of whom actually express indifference to the incident.

According to Lamas, "nearly one quarter of the student body received [the] email." If that is indeed the case, the convergence of a mere two opinions falls far short of justifying the article's blanket sub-heading, "Students say loss of privacy doesn't bother them." If a journalist chooses not to employ legitimate survey tools, she is surely obliged to refrain from broad generalizations, especially when dealing with samples as large as one fourth of Harvard College.

It is easy to forget that a great deal of what we know about the world derives from our exposure to the printed word. Journalists must strive to give us an impression of the world that comports with reality as nearly as possible. They should resist the urge to gild news articles with statements of non-existent, or at least non-apparent, popular consensus.

As a result of the Crimson's carelessness many of us were given a misleading, and probably false, impression of the feelings of our classmates.

But even more troubling than the article's particular problems is the fact that it was printed at all. Admittedly, a newspaper must often compromise people's privacy in order to meet its important public responsibility.