Assault Article Misleading

To the Editors:

I write in response to Zachary Pretzer’s article, “Sexual Assault Charges Dismissed,” published in The Oberlin Review of Nov. 2, I fail to understand why the Review staff chose to assign one of their sports editors to write an article of this nature, one that has no connection to sports whatsoever. In addition, the coverage of last week’s trial was incomplete, in that it included almost no discussion of the Oberlin College sexual offense policy. For instance, the last sentence of Pretzer’s article stated that the defendants are currently awaiting reinstatement, and that “how quickly they can return to campus depends on the manner in which the administration handles the issue.” While this is technically true, it is also misleading; it gives the impression that their reinstatement is somehow inevitable, involving a mere shuffling of papers. This is not the case. The College sexual offense policy outlines a process of investigation and disciplinary action that is completely separate from the criminal proceedings in Oberlin Municipal Court. The possible reinstatement of Mr. Eremic and Mr. Tomasevic, by no means guaranteed, is not affected by the ruling in last week’s court. Rather, it depends on the outcome of the independent investigation conducted by the College. While it is true that the article was focused on the court proceedings, a thorough discussion of the College policy is critical to fully understanding the issue. The court proceedings may be over, but the College investigation is not. This issue is by no means resolved, and without including the full story, the Review does a disservice to the Oberlin Community.
–Michelle Sharkey
College sophomore

November 9
November 16

site designed and maintained by jon macdonald and ben alschuler :::