Editor's Note: On Integrity
Forward Article to a Friend
Print Article
Recently, our Business Manger, Navin Kadaba, gave a presentation to the staff of The Review on professionalism. Navin identified three key actions that could make our paper more professional: organization, respect for our audience, and respect for our staff. Navin’s goal of increasing the integrity of The Review is laudable—and I’m confident our staff will take Navin’s comments to heart.
Regrettably, the history and image of The Review has been tainted by unprofessional articles and irrational behavior. Emotion has often subverted rationality for the purpose of creating notoriety. Unsubstantiated attacks against individuals, groups, or ideas serve no purpose in our cause of creating and fostering a political dialogue. Nor do they enhance tolerance for our publication. Certainly, I believe The Review has the right to print anything, except slander or libel. However, printing anything and everything would not be in the best interest of The Review.
Improving the paper’s integrity is one of the biggest ways our staff can make a difference at Stanford. I already believe, with conviction, that we provide the best written opinions on-campus. Our opinions articles are routinely well researched, unique, and thought-provoking. If we can get people to read our paper, The Review might really be able to change some opinions. One way to increase readership is door-to-door distribution—and hence our legal struggle. Another equally important step in enhancing readership is cleaning-up our image. Professionalism and integrity are key to establishing The Review as a credible and academic source of news and opinions for students.
I’ve already realized just how challenging the task of professionalizing our paper will be. Many people who disagree with our politics demonstrate the exact emotional and irrational behavior I want our paper to avoid. Just last month, a columnist from The Stanford Daily recommended that “intelligent Stanford students stop reading The Stanford Review and…that The Stanford Review stops printing everything double-spaced…if the publication was single spaced, wouldn’t that create half as much trash?” The fact that The Review is not double-spaced (which really nullifies any of the humor in the author’s intended jibe) just shows that some individuals are not interested in creating an intellectual and constructive dialogue.
The only purpose of the article was to get a rise out of The Review. I was certainly worried, at the time, that the columnist would be successful in provoking The Review to react emotionally. Certainly, our staff did respond to the attack. I’m proud to report, however, that the published responses were professional, thought-out, and non-inflammatory. I can’t speak, however, for the unpublished communication, although I hope it was professional as well. Few members of The Review were surprised that the same columnist later printed an article entitled, “The Stanford Review: Oh—it’s on.” The article relied a lot on the same emotional, subjective, and nonfactual rhetoric of the author’s first piece. The whole situation, I believe, was an enormous victory for The Stanford Review. Although the interaction did not lead to the establishment of a critical debate on the issue at hand—the legacy of the Stanford Indian—it did demonstrate that The Review can remain professional, even when viciously attacked.
Amidst this victory, it saddens me to report there was an unfortunate breech in our paper’s integrity during the last issue. A guest writer, previously unaffiliated with The Review, published an article that did not properly cite its sources (see apology letter and correction included in this issue). Although The Review has taken many steps towards rectifying the situation, the event is a major hurdle to jump in our race to create a more trustworthy, credible, and informative publication. I retain immense trust in our core staff, and want to assure our readers and the Stanford community that everything will be done to prevent this from happening in the future.
In the meantime, I encourage our readers to dive into our material, and enjoy the richness of its thought, research, and uniqueness. Business opportunities for students, individual liberty, and the economy of China are all interesting topics in this issue. Recognize the professionalism in our core writers. Appreciate the nuances. Enjoy the comprehension.
Best,
Ryan Tracey
Editor-in-Chief
