On Dec. 19, the Wall Street Journal published an article detailing Brandeis’ treatment of David Schaer ’97, a student accused of sexual misconduct who was brought before the University Board of Student Conduct in 1996. Following the decision, Schaer was suspended for the summer and later sued the University, alleging that he was denied due process under Brandeis disciplinary system. The Schaer case was dismissed last year by the Massachusetts Supreme Judiciary Court.

While the Wall Street Journal was only one of numerous media sources that covered the Schaer case, the recent article in the Journal has been one of the most striking examples of the approach the media has taken toward Brandeis - one which has produced a number of both scathing and markedly one-sided articles and news stories. Time and time again, the University has had to respond to articles which have essentially painted a detailed description of the events from Schaer’s point of view. He alleges the University trampled his rights and caved to a student-produced atmosphere of hysteria.

What has been notably missing throughout the media coverage of the case has been Brandeis’ point of view. The Wall Street Journal and other news sources, have readily cited the administration’s unwillingness to discuss the case as the major reason behind the apparent one-sidedness of their stories. What the media have apparently refused to acknowledge is that the University is prohibited from discussing the case by the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act. Even after his graduation, Schaer retains these rights and would need to give the University written permission to discuss the occurrences in 1996. Clearly, Schaer has not done so, and as a result, the public has only heard one side of this complicated story. While the decision to waive his rights is certainly Schaer’s, it is simply not fair that Brandeis’ reputation suffer as a result of the careless and ignorant reporting which has ensued.

While the University has worked hard to keep up with the media and submit letters to the editors of several major newspapers, many times this has not been enough. In a move consistent with its one-sided stance, the Wall Street Journal refused to publish the University’s letter of explanation. Schaer could not have asked for a better situation. Behind every accusation put forth by Schaer is a story that Brandeis is legally prevented from telling. Unfortunately, this is the way it will be until Schaer is secure enough in his position to allow the University to discuss its side of the case. That is Schaer’s prerogative. What is much more troubling is the very fact that some of this country’s most important news sources have refused to inform their readers that they may only be getting one piece of the puzzle in this case.