THE CAVALIER Daily reported on Jan. 20 that Associate Dean Richard Handler would replace Politics Prof. James Sofka as dean of the Echols Scholar program. The article gave a vague explanation of the change, quoting an e-mail from Sofka that said College Dean Edward Ayers requested it.
The Cavalier Daily uncovered a more detailed reason for the switch in an article that ran Jan. 26 ("Ayers letter reveals new reasons for Echols move"), prompting some controversy about the way the story was reported. The paper based the article on a letter addressed from Ayers to Sofka on Jan. 14 that said Ayers was relieving Sofka of as dean because of complaints of inappropriate behavior with female students.
A day later, the paper ran a follow-up article on Sofka's dismissal featuring details of another letter addressed from Sofka to Ayers. In the new letter, the ousted Echols dean asked Ayers to "submit [his] arguments to proper adjudicatory authority for review" and to offer Sofka "the basic decency of due process."
The newspaper's use of the letters raises two important questions: How did the newspaper end up with the letters, and should it have disclosed their contents?
The letter addressed from Ayers to Sofka is a personnel matter and clearly not a public record. Virginia's Freedom of Information Act forbids public institutions like the University from releasing personnel records to the public unless the subject of the record provides written permission.
Both articles only said copies of the letters were "obtained by The Cavalier Daily." The managing board assured me that the paper legally obtained the letters, which likely means at least one anonymous source leaked them.
Assuming that is the case, the paper can and should be more specific in discussing how it gets its information without revealing the identity of its sources. A statement like, "An anonymous source gave this letter to The Cavalier Daily" tells readers, "We promise we got these documents in a legitimate way, but we can't tell you who gave them to us."
The issue of whether The Cavalier Daily should have used the letters is much more complicated.
Ayers said in the original letter that the administration intended to keep the reason for Sofka's removal confidential, partly to protect Sofka's reputation and partly to have a minimal impact on students in the Echols program. The letter suggests Ayers thought that not disclosing the allegations against Sofka was in everyone's best interest.
The Cavalier Daily also had a decision to make about what was in everyone's best interest once it received the letters. The paper had to determine whether its readership's need to know why Sofka was being replaced was more important than Ayers' desire to keep the matter private and protect Sofka's reputation.
A letter to the editor in Thursday's paper ("Inappropriate intrustion," Jan. 27) suggested The Cavalier Daily's editors should have read the first letter more closely and kept its contents private as the administration wanted. The idea that information should remain out of the public's view simply because the people in charge said so runs counter to just about everything good journalism stands for. Ignoring whether the right call was made, the decision to publish the information belonged to the paper.
The same letter to the editor blasted The Cavalier Daily for "having [Sofka's] name dragged through the mud." Part of any newspaper's responsibility is to closely scrutinize the conduct of people in power, including prominent faculty members and administrators.
The paper has covered this story in a way that has been more than fair to Sofka. The Wednesday article gave him ample opportunity to respond to the allegations in the initial letter. Thursday's follow-up article offered details of his formal response to Ayers, and on the same day the paper printed an open letter to the University community from Sofka in its entirety.
I received an e-mail from another reader who questioned the motives of the person he suspected leaked the first letter. The e-mail brings up a great point about anonymous sources.
In some cases, sources will only give information to reporters if they receive a guarantee of anonymity. Sources may want to hide their identities if they are worried about losing their jobs, concerned about their safety or nervous that the information they provide will get them in trouble in some other way -- all legitimate reasons. But others will request anonymity to push an agenda or attack a rival without repercussions.
Reporters must question the motives of any source who asks for a promise of anonymity in exchange for information, including documents about a dean's removal. Journalists should always consider those motives before agreeing to keep any source's identity confidential.
Jeremy Ashton can be reached at ombud@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
