Editors’ note
October 11, 2021
Update, October 16, 2020, 4:45 p.m.: Student Government Association has released a response to this editors’ note, which can be read here in addition to a statement from the S&B.
The S&B began reporting on this story in the days following the alleged incident involving Ellen Mease. As this is one of the more sensitive and complex topics we’ve reported on in recent months, we feel that it is important that we clarify the circumstances of its publication and reveal some of the dynamics that unfolded behind the scenes during the writing of this article, which we feel have the potential to set a disturbing precedent that could limit the S&B’s future journalistic independence.
Midway through the reporting and investigation, members of Student Government Association (SGA) approached S&B staff members involved in this piece, including both editors in chief, the arts section editor who edited this piece and the writer. The SGA representatives informed us that they had been contacted by members of the theatre and dance student educational policy committee (SEPC) who were concerned about potential coercion of a key source by an S&B reporter: the source cited in the article as having withdrawn their account and identity. When pressed further for the basis of concerns, the SGA representatives did not cite any specific allegations from the source and instead told us that the concerns came from unspecified third parties.
The S&B then organized a meeting with SGA and the SEPC, which was not recorded at their request, in order to further hear their concerns and answer questions they might have about the reporting process for the story and the S&B’s ethical policies. During this meeting, the SGA and SEPC members present made it clear that they did not want to see this story published, citing concerns that the article’s publication could open any conduct investigation, if held, to legal challenges and that it would not be appropriate for the case to be made public prior to the College releasing its own statement on an investigation. The S&B has not received any indication of whether or not the College intends to release a statement on the matter nor any other information.
The S&B had considered and continues to consider these risks, but ultimately decided that publishing the piece was an important way of making Grinnell College students, staff, faculty and alumni aware of Mease’s suspension and that not publishing the article could do more harm than publishing.
Another key concern of SGA and the SEPC was that it was a misstep on the part of the S&B to approach students involved in this situation without their explicit consent to be contacted, and that our multiple attempts to contact students via different forms of communication overstepped a personal boundary and had the potential to re-traumatize. We explained that we cannot report on sensitive stories without asking people about sensitive matters, and it would have been a failure on our part to not request statements from students simply because there was a possibility the request to speak about the topic could be upsetting. We received no notification from students that they did not wish to be contacted, and should we have, we would have respected those wishes immediately. Many of SGA and the SEPC’s arguments for the article’s cancellation or delay revolved around concerns for the sources’ state of mind and well-being yet did not provide any specific complaints from interviewees.
During the meeting, one member of SGA also suggested that the sensitive nature of the story could pose a risk to the S&B’s continued funding through the Student Publications and Radio Committee, which we found both irrelevant to the topic at hand and a highly alarming insinuation coming from a high-ranking elected member of the SGA cabinet. It is our independence from the College that allows us to report on stories of this nature without fear of retaliation, and any threat to that independence should be taken extremely seriously.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the S&B advised both organizations that we would proceed with publication as scheduled unless we received compelling factual evidence that publishing the article would cause harm. SGA and the SEPC also informed us they would meet with the source in order to ensure that the source had not felt coerced or pressured to share their story with us, and to ensure that the source was aware of any potential consequences of identifying themselves publicly with the incident. We refrained from sharing our opinion on this suggested meeting so as not to place further pressure on the source from our end, but this level of interference with our reporting disrespects the boundaries between elected student representatives and journalists that allow the S&B independence from College and student government interests.
Shortly before the article was slated for publication, nearly three weeks after the reporting process began, the writer of this article received an email from the key source retracting their story on the basis that they did not want the S&B to publicize the details of Mease’s suspension prior to the College releasing a statement on the incident. The source, who had previously stated explicitly that they wanted to be identified by name and wanted their story made public, wished to retract their name and their personal account from the article, a wish that the S&B respected.
It is rare and bordering on inappropriate for student representatives to involve themselves in a story to the degree that the SGA representatives did in this case, and even more unusual for the S&B to share details about the ongoing reporting of a story with said representatives. We, the editors, made the decision to share those details because we wanted to assure SGA and the theatre and dance SEPC that we had taken precautions to give the source all the information we could know and ethically provide as journalists on what being quoted in this article would mean. Most importantly, we felt this story should be reported, for readers who might wonder why we covered it up had we not published it.
We reached out to the SGA and SEPC members who were involved in this story for comment, and they all either declined to speak on the record or did not respond. We are electing not to name any of the individuals present at the meetings mentioned in this note, other than the S&B staff members who attended.
Signed,
Abraham Teuber and Eva Hill, editors in chief, and Nadia Langley, arts editor
Grow thef up • Oct 22, 2021 at 10:50 am
Well done, S&B. Hold fast.
Yet another alum • Oct 18, 2021 at 3:27 pm
As an alum, or even not, I wanted to add my support to what many alumni are stating: the S&B did the right thing. As “Disappointed” mentions, the comments from the SGA member are particularly disappointing. By retaliating against individuals and the entire S&B, that writer undermines claims to stand for justice and diversity. Moreover, alumni with journalism experience are confirming that the actions of the S&B were ethical–at least based on what is known so far. Thus, wherever and however the student journalists got their understanding of journalism ethics, it is laudable. Now the question is: where did some members of the SGA (and SEPC) get their understanding of journalism’s role in society?
Some Rando • Oct 15, 2021 at 11:30 am
Hi!
I’m a somewhat random stranger coming off the internet who has worked as both a journalist and a theatre artist. I don’t know any of you from Adam, but I just wanted to take a moment to share that all of the criticisms of this piece are bonkers, and betray a lack of understanding of how journalism works. If reporters didn’t chase down leads and contact info, they wouldn’t be reporters, and your publication would be a community bulletin board, not a newspaper.
It sounds like the staff of the S and B has done an admirable job of navigating a difficult situation, and I want to take a moment to commend them for their reporting, which has now gained some national attention. I also want to commend Allison Moore for her willingness to take this on. This took courage and commitment.
And for those of you complaining that no one was compensated for their emotional labor… well… no one owes you anything for your emotional labor. Sorry. That’s not a thing in the real world. If you don’t want to talk to a journalist, you have the right to decline when they reach out to you (I myself have done so).
Keep up the good work, S&B!
Respectfully yours,
Some Rando
[2021] • Oct 15, 2021 at 11:10 am
People at this school love getting upset
Nathan Forman '15 • Oct 15, 2021 at 10:05 am
I hope SGA and SPARC aren’t as close-knit as is insinuated in this note. One of my fondest memories as SPARC chair was telling SGA and Student Affairs to pound sand when they wanted to move the Grinnell AppDev team into the SPARC/S&B offices. The independence of SPARC and S&B from SGA (and admin interference) should be pretty obvious and integral to having “independent media.”
When I was a student S&B blew the doors off sensitive stories around the college’s mishandling of title IX, a professor fired for plagiarism, Grinnell PD incursions on campus, and a lot of other student affairs concerns. These were controversial undertakings but nobody, in my memory, was pissed that the S&B was asking questions to involved parties.
I also remember the SGA officers and S&B Editorial board LOATHING each other during Colleen Osborne’s presidency, after S&B published some really uncharitable quotes from officers in highly critical articles of SGA decision-making processes. The distaste didn’t mean SGA stopped talking to S&B tho – isn’t communicating publicly part of the job?
The commenters condemning your reporting and methods are using other peoples’ trauma to justify information suppression. Signing one’s name to a comment saying you never want to contribute to the S&B again is bankrupt, just like the consternation S&B’s receiving for this.
Keep doing good work.
A not-that-old alum • Oct 15, 2021 at 9:24 am
I get the impression that those of you who don’t know C. Ellen Mease are failing to understand the extent to which this woman (who is probably in her 70’s by now) views herself as an old school artiste and auteur director. It’s not unusual in the history of theatre and art cinema to hear of directors who have shocked or scared their actors (via unorthodox methods and yes, sometimes, “throwing hands,” as the kids say). My charitable read on it from Ellen’s perspective is she assumed she had a much closer/intenser working relationship with this actor-student and that art can transcend conventional boundaries of socially-accepted behavior. That said, any teacher/professor knows that rule #1 is “Never touch the students.” I’m not justifying anything…just trying to read the situation in light of my own interactions with Prof. Mease (which have been, yes, generally positive) and I suppose, from a charitable angle. I’ve even seen some theater bloggers commenting that she should have sought out Stage Combatant Certification before agreeing to direct a production with a face slap.
Does Grinnell still have Dagorhir? Maybe Ellen should join this campus group and attend the orientation session. I’m sure they have rules about hitting each other that are firmly respected within the community.
Prof Katya Gibel Mevorach • Oct 14, 2021 at 6:47 pm
I applaud the ethical integrity of the author and the Editorial Board – this is exemplary of good investigative journalism which has been eroding over the last decade.
Trevor Sisk • Oct 14, 2021 at 4:36 pm
Calm down everybody. Journalists for as long as there have been newspapers, have always reported stories while protecting their sources. Ever hear of a “confidential informant”? It happens everyday. Also, journalists are expected to go out there and get a story. They aren’t waiting or worried if someone wants to be contact. If journalists didn’t operate under such conditions; if for every story a reporter was forced to name the person providing sensitive information or only contact people who wanted to be contacted, we’d never hear about anything! So these are ridiculous, naive criticisms. A teacher slapped a student. Yes, a news organization is going to report that according to any information they able to come by. Sorry if it embarrasses or offends anyone. And journalists are under no obligation to “hold stories” in order to not embarrass or protect the victim. It just doesn’t work that way. Again, if that was the case we’d never hear about anyone doing something bad. An exception is made when the victim is a minor. When people do inappropriate things, it sucks all around for everyone involved. This is not only true, but it is life.
On a side note, what is Professor Mease’s side of the story? Surely there is one. Unless of course we are to believe that a theater professor of 40 years at the same school is suddenly, randomly and without provocation, slapping students. Plus, isn’t a STAGE slap a non-contact event?? A STAGE slap can’t happen unless the other person is involved, that’s what makes it a STAGE slap. So this is either a regular slap or a huge big misunderstanding. But one thing it can’t be is a STAGE slap because STAGE slaps don’t invovle any contact with a person’s face.
Theatre Alum • Oct 14, 2021 at 9:30 am
What an awful thing for all the students to endure. But I also believe that a free press is essential to a functioning democracy. A free press not only notifies its audience about important issues, it holds power in check. And yes, a college newspaper is an important part of a free press that has historically brought important issues to the fore. There is no requirement to have a journalism course or degree in your arsenal to be a quality journalist. “Should there be a free press?” is a yes or no question; any attempt to make it “sometimes” means that no, it is not truly a free press, and those in power are able to influence what they think others should know. Having a free press means that we will all eventually be angered, frustrated, or aggrieved by some story or other. It’s an agreement that we make that despite that, we will believe in the principle that transparency is vital. As other alumni have alluded to above, this particular event was not a surprise, but part of a larger pattern. When some of us were students, we didn’t have the advantage of social media or comment threads to easily raise our voices against faculty discretions. We didn’t feel empowered, we felt afraid, resigned, like we just had to live through something that perhaps we shouldn’t have. Maybe reporting like this will reveal inconvenient truths, as uncomfortable as they may be, that the administration can’t ignore. Regardless, know that this is the way for alumni to know about the event, and support you. Together we can do more–but we need to know so that we can help.
Jordan magill • Oct 13, 2021 at 4:50 pm
Sorry but these reactions are bat sh!te nuts (and ignorant of the basic principles of journalism). The obligation of the S&B is to report a story of public interest to the Grinnell community. By any standard this story fits the bill (and is decades over due). A quick thought experiment: can anybody think of a case where people in power abused those without power that was made “better” by journalists giving into institutional pressure to not report? Institutions, near axiomatically, prioritize self protection over accountability.
Bravo to the S&B team for demonstrating journalistic integrity! I only wish your predecessors took the actions that might have saved generations from abuse.
Another Alum • Oct 13, 2021 at 1:28 am
Reading these comments is incredibly strange. Do current students really think that the best way to protect survivors is to make sure the only people who get to say anything about the situation are college officials? I’m not making a judgement on how this particular situation will play out, but “Be quiet and let the people in charge of the institution do all the investigating” has, historically, led nowhere good. That you are demanding it means you are trying to deny people an alternative way to be heard. And the paper getting cellphone numbers was simply a way of trying to contact them. Why shouldn’t they interview students if they are willing to speak? Their job isn’t to simply regurgitate whatever college officials tell them.
Secondly, I am wondering about the fact that the student in question does not seem to have had an issue with interviewing until his “advocate” friends began weighing in. I am sure they were concerned for their friend and wanted the best for him, but talking to the paper is his choice, and he is (I’m presuming) a legal adult who can decide for himself whether doing the interview will be harmful or not. To continuously intervene to shut down the story “on his behalf” does nothing but make things very convenient for college officials, as whatever version of the story they release would be the only one. Interventions like this are more suitable for situations in which a person is doing himself ongoing and verifiable damage — a severe drug addiction, say. They are not for things like deciding to tell a reporter a story when asked. I get the sense the person in question was being heavily browbeaten by his “advocates”. Don’t do this to your friends. Let them decide for themselves if telling their story is all right or not.
Finally, the demand that the meeting not be recorded in any way is incredibly creepy and authoritarian. Please consider how it looks from the outside when you are deeply concerned that there should be no checkable record of what you said and did.
Former student • Oct 12, 2021 at 7:01 pm
Students need to stop pointing their fingers at each other and start pointing them at the people in power who have a long history of not doing right by students. It is extremely hard to come forward with mistreatment, especially when anonymity is going to be nearly impossible to maintain at a community like Grinnell. I truly believe that the SGA and the SEPC are reacting because they want to do right by the impacted students. So does the S and B. I believe you all want the same thing: for students to learn in a safe environment that is free of judgement where you can all practice the skills that you are passionate about (journalism, theatre, government, etc.) Unfortunately, the college has not done enough and they should know better. None of this is new. All they need to do is look past student reviews of classes or talk to any alumni. The S and B reported on an important story. Maybe this will finally pressure the school into action and will help to shift the culture. I am so sorry that any of you have been made to feel unsafe and I hope you keep supporting each other. Please know that the alumni believe you, it is not a small problem, it did not happen in a vacuum. Work together to enact change – you deserve better.
No • Oct 12, 2021 at 5:39 pm
This shits crazy
Alum ~2004 • Oct 12, 2021 at 4:40 pm
As far as I can tell the S&B behaved ethically, removing a person’s name and first person account from the story at their request. But they are not obligated to spike a story because someone involved with it thinks it will upset them, and the interference from SGA should really raise alarm bells for all current students.
Former Grinnell Student and Valerie Stimac are right on the money with their comments. I will add: The reason these problems persist is because they get swept under the rug. You do not want a student newspaper that bows to pressure like you imply they should, and future Grinnellians will benefit from the S&B’s efforts here.
Alum '16 • Oct 12, 2021 at 4:12 pm
Can someone explain what they see as the “harm” of this story or why it’s “bad”? I see references to impeding a potential investigation but I don’t understand how this story would do that.
Disappointed • Oct 12, 2021 at 2:30 pm
Many of the comments, here an on other social media platforms, are extremely disappointing to see, and, in my opinion, are way off-base.
If we want to talk about “unethical,” members of SGA inserting themselves into a process to which they are utterly irrelevant, and then trying to threaten the funding of an independent organization is what is “unethical.” To see a member of SGA stray wildly outside their authority, threatening the funding of an independent organization on campus, undermining the commitment to transparency and a free press is alarming; to see a member of SGA defending an abuse of power is deeply concerning and wholly inappropriate.
If you want to talk about “ignoring power dynamics,” publicly defaming student writers—many of whom are first and second years—from a high-ranking position on SGA is a serious dismissal of power dynamics.
Although I think the point that the staff at the newspaper are “simply writers who applied for positions” is both nonsensical and irrelevant, we can entertain that for a moment because it undermines the argument you are trying to make. If they really aren’t journalists because GC “has no journalism major or classes,” then your shoddy grasp on “ethical journalism” simply does not apply.
SGA needs to be reminded of the limits of their power. In the “real world,” a governing body does not get to prevent a newspaper from running a story just because it doesn’t like it. It seems people like having an independent newspaper until it makes them uncomfortable, and then the commitment to an independent press is tossed aside. The paper is not under the jurisdiction of SGA, and it isn’t the paper’s job to be the PR firm for an errant member of SGA or an SEPC.
As expressed above, the responses by members of the SGA have been totally inappropriate. There is no way the paper could have covered this that would have pleased y’all: the paper choosing to cover the story causes “harm,” but the paper choosing not to cover it also would not have been acceptable to you, it seems.
The co-opting the language of trauma-centered discourse as a means of defending an attempt at censorship is deeply troubling, and it raise questions about the stated commitment to those issues. This isn’t a situation in which the paper covered something just to cover it, as some commenters have implied; this is the paper at the college covering a serious issue that affects the entire community, and it involves the transparency of investigations and how we hold faculty accountable—especially tenured faculty who have had issues before.
To have a member of SGA trash all the papers not only is indicative of the lack of respect they have for independent journalism and the principle of a free press, but it also is evidence of a serious disregard for the other things present in the newspaper: the ongoing union organization efforts, columns about mental health, and book reviews in honor of Hispanic heritage month, for example. This response, and the threatening of funding (which is laughable because SGA does not have the power to follow-through on that threat), similarly undermine SGA’s commitment to self-governance.
In no way does this disrupt any potential legal proceedings, and in no way does this cause harm or re-ignite trauma. That assertion is simply not true.
The paper did exactly as they needed to, and those involved in writing the story covered a sensitive issue with the requisite anonymity and sensitivity. Given the maintenance of anonymity, in the interest of accountability and transparency, it is, in the end, a good thing for the story to run.
Former Grinnell Student • Oct 12, 2021 at 1:24 pm
Some of the criticisms are really confusing from a member of the media on the outside of this issue:
“Did you compensate the victim and witnesses for their emotional labor and time?” It is not expected or ethical to compensate sources for interviews.
“Did you also reach out to Ellen Mease’s peers asking for her personal cellphone number?” This is a standard approach in investigate journalism to contacting a source. ‘Real world’ journalists go to much greater lengths to talk to sources.
I’ve seen a lot of comments saying this article was “bad,” but I don’t understand why. It seems to be reporting on an important issue at Grinnell, and it does not appear to endanger legal proceedings. Revealing important issues is the responsibility of the media.
Jacob Johnson • Oct 12, 2021 at 11:54 am
There was never a moment, as far as I can tell, where the S&B was told that they couldn’t publish the article. But freedom of speech goes both ways – if they can publish it, I can write about that publication being awful, disrespectful, and self-centered.
Furthermore, the reason there was something missing from the article is that the article was not finished. This is part of why we’re saying it shouldn’t have been published – because it is, on a fundamental level, a bad article, and no amount of editor’s notes blaming other students and campus organizations can fix it.
Valerie Stimac • Oct 12, 2021 at 9:59 am
As a member of the media (and Grinnel alum), it seems that there’s part of the story missing for those of us on the outside – which makes it clear that the story and editor’s note *was* needed to address the wider Grinnell community about a professor’s suspension from a role.
Nothing in the original article can be read in any way that impedes legal proceedings, and the incident was corroborated by multiple sources. The original “key source” could always have been used anonymously without it affecting the journalistic integrity of the piece; that one line is irrelevant to the actual story, but beyond that, there’s no real transgression to merit this response.
From the outside, this note and the comments read like a community who wants freedom of press until that press publishes something they don’t like/want published [yet/at that time]. That’s not how the press works, and that’s why the press works.
A Former Grinnell Student • Oct 11, 2021 at 7:08 pm
I envy the raw idealism on display in these comments. The investigation will come to naught no matter how it’s reported by the S&B, because that’s how it’s been with Ellen Mease for years and years. [Potentially defamatory comment removed by the S&B.] And why not? No one wants to embarrass their college and get a beloved professor suspended.
Sarah Licht • Oct 11, 2021 at 6:34 pm
“our multiple attempts to contact students via different forms of communication”
Strange way of saying “got personal cell phone numbers from friends of the victims and witnesses,” isn’t it?
Also, there’s an astronomical difference between ‘covering up’ a story and giving grace to the people directly affected and putting their mental health before publishing an article. Covering it up would imply that you’re actively trying to make it seem like the (alleged) incident didn’t happen, and, given how you’ve pushed for this article to be published despite the wishes of people who were only trying to advocate for their peers, I doubt anyone would assume that. What seems far more likely is that no one involved with this article on your side wanted to be inconvenienced by a few questions wondering why an article hadn’t been written yet. And, since an active investigation is currently happening that the article could jeopardize, I think you had a good response to those questions.
Rhys Holman • Oct 11, 2021 at 5:57 pm
This is a pretty terrible response. You speak about weighing harms, yet the only harm you mention in favor of publishing was potentially being questioned about why you didn’t publish it. Interestingly, the harm to the student whose story you published entirely on hearsay because they didn’t want to be quoted is left out. The harm you prioritized over that wasn’t even a necessary harm, it was just a question. A question that could be answered “we had no primary sources for the story so didn’t want to publish hearsay.” Harm gone. The decision to disregard the harm to the student and instead focus on making sure you aren’t inconvenienced by questions shows, in my opinion, selfishness and deep lack of care for those you interview. This is my first exposure to the S&B and I will not be returning, because it seems like you aren’t very good journalists nor people.
Sophie Noyes • Oct 11, 2021 at 5:34 pm
Journalistic integrity? Shame on you for publishing your half baked take on the events in the theatre department in the name of reducing harm… all you’ve done is actively harm those working for justice in the department and impede that work. God forbid you lose out on a scoop because you were waiting for real information. This article and editors’ note disregard the feelings and wishes of the people actually impacted and harmed by the situation. Who could you possibly be helping? How does this further justice? This is disappointing journalism at best, and actively harmful at worst (and in reality). What a mess.
Thomas Grindle • Oct 11, 2021 at 3:53 pm
This note is ridiculous and the article to which it is attached is unethical. Without the primary witness, who clearly did not want to be named or have their information published (which you apparently assumed was due to coercion instead of any one of the myriad other reasons that could be the root cause), this article is almost entirely hearsay and devoid of substance. It’s a story without a source whose only direct evidence is a set of emails in the aftermath, which proves nothing other than that an investigation is ongoing; it’s a timeline, and one without any evidence of the very first step. It clearly happened, but nothing in your article proves that ground assumption you have built the rest off of. If, as you say, your reporting “corroborated the allegations,” then report on the corroboration instead of reporting that you had a key source who later elected to walk back their statement. I am far, far from an expert on journalistic integrity, but the utter lack of any professionalism when handling the wishes of your sources has convinced me that you aren’t either. This isn’t Watergate. It could wait. Is it really worth it to risk the legal proceedings that would ensure someone who is clearly a threat to the wellbeing of the Grinnellians under her tutelage would be removed from her position just so that you wouldn’t have to answer a few questions? I have the greatest respect for several of your writers, but in this case your editing shows a clear lack of respect for the victims. Additionally, even working off of solely your side of the story, it sounds far more likely to me that you weren’t being threatened by the SGA, you were being informed of the possible consequences of your own actions. Journalistic integrity is one thing, legal proceedings is another. I hope that you haven’t derailed a critical legal proceeding that the victim clearly didn’t want aired at this stage just so that you can feel better about it.
Jacob Johnson • Oct 11, 2021 at 2:05 pm
“not publishing the article could do more harm than publishing”
Well, it sounds like the harm from publishing would be “ongoing investigations are potentially paused or invalidated due to legal ramification,” and the harm from not publishing would be “people will ask us why we didn’t publish this and we don’t know what to say.” It seems the only way in which publishing is preferable is because not publishing could have mildly inconvenienced you.
Raven McClendon • Oct 11, 2021 at 11:20 am
This editors’ note is dishonest by omission of the truth. Abraham, Eva, Nadia, Allison and everyone else on your staff involved in this ordeal should feel immense shame. I say this in my capacity as a student, a CBS Spokesperson, the SGA DEI Chair, and someone who cares about harm done to victims of assault. Your journalism is unethical, and as a result, I would like to pull everything that I have ever published in the S&B. Until y’all take accountability and apologize/atone for your actions (to the victim(s) and witnesses, especially), the S&B will never receive another quote, image, or op-ed from Raven Chanel McClendon. I stand in solidarity with the victim, the THD SEPC, the cast/crew of Arcadia, and my co-worker who was only informing y’all of the potential ramifications should your sloppy journalism blow up in your faces. Lastly, it was the College’s duty to inform students of Mease’s (alleged) misconduct. The College failed to do that, and that’s who your (passive) aggression should have been directed at, not victims and witnesses. How the S&B reached out to the students involved was insensitive, and personal boundaries were crossed. Again, you all evade accountability by ignoring the power dynamics at play: you all are paid student writers of Grinnell College’s most prominent media outlet. Did you compensate the victim and witnesses for their emotional labor and time? Did you also reach out to Ellen Mease’s peers asking for her personal cellphone number? Lastly, who made y’all the experts on ethical journalism? Last time I checked Grinnell College has no journalism major or classes…as far as I’m concerned, y’all are simply writers who applied for positions and were fortunate enough to get them. The article, this editors’ note, and the flippant language used is distasteful. However, I expected nothing less because it’s “less about them and more about us,” right, Eva?