I saw and read this Letter To the Editor on the afternoon of Friday, April 13, a few hours before the results for student body president and executive vice-president were announced.
At that time, I asked Austin Gardner, whose campaign for executive vice-president I later endorsed, to save screenshots of the piece from The Daily Northwestern’s website.
That Friday evening, I noticed that the headline for the Letter had been changed to add the number “30.” No editor’s note or similar indicated the change.
The next day, I emailed editor-in-chief Peter Kotecki and opinion editor Alex Schwartz, asking them for the following information:
- Of the date and time that the letter was first published on The Daily Northwestern website;
- Of the date and time that the letter was first shared on The Daily Northwestern’s social media (including, but not limited to, Facebook and Twitter);
- Of the date and time that the headline of the letter was changed from “Letter to the Editor: LGBTQ+ students endorse Sky + Em” to “Letter to the Editor: 30 LGBTQ+ students endorse Sky + Em”;
- Whether the original headline for the letter was written by the signatories/submitters of the letter or by a Daily Northwestern editor or staffer;
- Whether the headline was changed upon request by one of the signatories/submitters of the letter, upon request by a third party, or solely by a Daily Northwestern editor or staffer;
- Whether the Daily Northwestern independently confirmed that each of the named signatories of the letter intended to be listed;
- Whether the Daily Northwestern confirmed the 14 other LGBTQ+ students listed as unnamed signatories, and whether the Daily is aware of their identities (but not the actual identities of the unnamed individuals).
I wrote the questions so the Daily editors would only need to provide factual information about the process and not give interpretations or comments about what happened. I also wrote that our emails should considered on-the-record and I may publish the email chain in its entirety.
Schwartz responded a few hours later, asking why I needed the information and whether I was reporting for a “separate publication.”
I believe his question was prompted by my significant involvement with the campus alternative newsmagazine North by Northwestern, most notably as publisher in the last year. During my years at Medill, The Daily has had a frosty relationship with North by Northwestern, and many of NBN’s writers and editors were former contributors to The Daily. I stepped down as publisher of North by Northwestern last month and now remain involved in an advisory capacity.
At the time of Schwartz’s email, it was unclear whether North by Northwestern would publish my piece. I had informed publisher Victoria Alfred-Levow and editor-in-chief Justin Curto of my intention to publish a piece about the LGBTQ+ letter, but the decision of what to publish at North by Northwestern is handled by editors, and Curto had not yet confirmed if he would publish my piece.
I wrote back to Schwartz saying I intended to use the information for “commentary and criticism on matters relevant to the Northwestern community,” as that much would be true regardless of where the information was published, and repeated my request.
Schwartz responded with “I’m sorry, but we do not publicly disclose information about our editorial process.” He referred me to the authors of the letter. He did not give a reason for his declination.
I managed to get in touch with one signer via Facebook private message and learned that Emily Zaniker, the first name listed on the letter, was the person who sent around a Google Form asking for signatures. The signer, who requested to not be named, said the information provided to them by Zaniker when they signed did not include a headline. Zaniker did not respond to an email requesting information.
As I wrote the first draft of my piece over the weekend, it became clear that it was going to be largely critical of The Daily, and I informed Alfred-Levow and Curto that I would not offer my piece to North by Northwestern as I did not wish to involve the publication in my personal criticisms of another student publication. (During drafting, I shared select paragraphs from the piece with Alfred-Levow but did not discuss the matter with Curto at all. I messaged Alfred-Levow before the piece was published to inform her of that fact.)
Schwartz’s “Letter From the Editor” was published on Monday, April 16. When I read his letter, I noticed the apparent discrepancy between what he wrote in his letter and his email to me. I sent an email to Schwartz to inform him of my intention to publish our emails and asked him for comment.
He responded that his original declination to provide information was on the basis that I had not “provided a concrete answer as to where the information would be published.” This reasoning was not included in earlier emails.
I thought this wasn’t relevant because I had asked for facts such as dates, times, and whether the letter signers or The Daily wrote and changed the headline. Because of the factual nature of the information I requested, I felt The Daily should not treat me any differently than they would another Northwestern student or Daily reader. To me, it would not matter whether the information provided were made public by me, North by Northwestern, or The Daily itself.
I replied to Schwartz stating that I was did not think that how the information was to be published was pertinent, given that other publications can and do quote from the original publishing source.
He replied a few hours later:
When reporters ask for on the record information, they are expected to identify who they are and what publication they are working for in order to provide clarity for their sources, who have a right to offer or refuse information based on how they’ve been told it will be used. I expect the same treatment as a source in whatever piece you are writing about the section I edit. Therefore, I once again need to know where you plan to publish this information — regardless of whether it’s self-published or part of a publication — and I will be happy to provide you with the information.
Not wishing to engage in an email exchange regarding what should be expected of reporters, I did not respond to his email.
