By
The Wildcat Opinions Board
Oftentimes in this space, you get the pleasure (or displeasure) of reading our thoughts and perspectives on issues we feel are important to the UA community. In many instances, these editorials criticize the actions and words - or lack thereof - of certain parties.
Peter Likins should have done this. How could ASUA have done that? Athletic Director Jim Livengood should fire so and so.
Well, we're going to do more of the same here, because a group on campus needs to justify its actions. Us.
As the eyes and ears of the University of Arizona campus, we take our responsibility to our readers very seriously. Besides striving to provide you all the information needed to understand the happenings around campus, the Wildcat wants to do it in a timely and accurate manner, with emphasis on the latter.
Last Wednesday, the Wildcat printed a story about two students who were reportedly assaulted Oct. 27 on the southwest side of campus. The students, both residents of Coronado Residence Hall, told police they were attacked while walking to the Texaco Service Station on the corner of North Park Avenue and East Sixth Street just before 2 a.m.
In the story, we referred to University Police reports that stated both victims were white, while the three men suspected in the attack were black.
It is important to understand the above facts. The first fact is that police, not the Wildcat, said the victims were white. And police, not the Wildcat, said the suspects were black. These were both true statements. However, we nevertheless did a disservice to our readers by the nature in which we presented the information in the article.
In previous crime-related stories this semester, not once did we include the ethnicity of the victims. It was inconsistent of us to do so in this case.
Why did we do it? Sgt. Mike Smith, a UAPD public information officer, told a Wildcat reporter that police did not believe the reported attack was racially motivated. By including this information in the story, we assumed our readers would want to know the ethnicities of the parties involved in the attack.
In hindsight, we absolutely should have left out all race-related information, including Smith's statement. After all, if police did not believe race was a factor, why mention it?
Another judgment error on the Wildcat's part was listing the description for the suspects as simply "black." As many letter writers and other students have correctly pointed out since the story ran, "black" is no more of a description that "white" or "tall" or "skinny." In itself, "black" is useless.
Now, had we said police were looking for a 6-foot-2-inch, 180-pound male wearing a green shirt and brown pants, that would be a description that students could use to assist police in apprehending the suspect(s).
For the clubs, departments and students the Wildcat upset last week, the intention was simply to give an accurate description of what happened to two students in the early morning of Friday, Oct. 27. In doing so, however, it appears we included information that was not complete and thus misled our readers.
For doing that, we apologize. It was a lapse in critical judgment that we will work hard to ensure does not happen again.
This editorial represents the collaborative stance of the Arizona Daily Wildcat Opinions Board.
