Dissecting The Exonian's CCO Article
Like many, we looked with interest at the publication of the College Counseling article—we’d heard the rumors of a “hit piece” and vaguely knew about some long-term project. After its release, we realized that students sensationalized the piece. Despite the stated intentions of the Board outlined in Suan Lee’s editorial, much of the student body has treated it as a spotlight on corruption in the College Counseling Office (CCO), when it was nothing of the sort. We contend, however, that The Exonian made blunders in the presentation of its work that unwittingly empowered the sensationalizers.
To clarify, we defend The Exonian’s right to pursue an investigation of CCO, particularly in light of Operation Varsity Blues. We appreciate the effort and dedication that went into producing a piece of this depth and length and don’t intend to attack any of the piece’s authors, all of whom we must presume came into the project with only the best of intentions and pursued the investigation to its fullest. The authors are our peers and friends.
Unfortunately, we contend that the article couldn’t be properly described as an investigation into CCO. A quick Ctrl+F search illustrates this well—the name “Dolan” is referenced fifty-three times, while “College Counseling Office” and its shortened form, added together, only get fifty mentions. The name “Hernandez” appears three times, “Terhune” twice, “Manderlink” twice, “Hoven” twice, and “Einhaus” seven times. Furthermore, it includes a prominent section that traces Dolan’s time at the Academy. Intent aside, this article reads more like an investigation of one private individual than of a department. To that point: after release, the name on everyone’s tongue wasn’t Einhaus, Hernandez or Terhune—it was Dolan.
The Exonian did explain their focus on Dolan, citing her “long tenure as the Dean of College Counseling and her reputation among students as Exeter’s most well-connected counselor” as basis for comparison. Yet, we’re unconvinced that one’s reputation or tenure should open them to a personal investigation of this nature. The Exonian, being a high school community publication, has obligations that other newspapers don’t. We would expect that it not single out, by name, a specific individual for accusations of personal misconduct. The reasons are numerous, but foremost, it hampers the community trust that The Exonian should be fostering.
The article also has real consequences for a community member—Dolan herself. A seemingly incriminating investigation, when pulled out of context, could come at steep personal cost, particularly considering that The Exonian is available online. Any interested party could access an investigation littered with student rumours. Regardless of whether these claims are substantiated, an article seemingly focused on Dolan could mar her professional standing. We wish that The Exonian had limited its contextual background and broadened the article’s statistical and anecdotal focus to include other counselors.
Moreover, the article placed purely speculative student quotes near statistically-insignificant results, particularly around parental connections and grade point average. The authors have fair reason here—the article was designed to compare claims to evidence. Unfortunately, it put many readers in a somewhat paranoid mental framework, amplified by the existing drama behind the piece. Thus, many Exonians treated small deviations from the average as validation for the spreading of rumours.
At the same time, many of Dolan’s own quotes do not address the statistics themselves. Whatever the reason, no authoritative voice provided commentary on the statistics themselves. The Exonian, in giving so much airtime to conjecture. Perhaps, The Exonian could have separated student claims from the statistics entirely in a separate section, delineating it as perception instead of reality.
We further question how The Exonian chose to use student quotes to measure opinion instead of a similar survey. If the article’s focus was to gauge student perception and compare it to the realities at the CCO, wouldn’t an empirical measurement of both be necessary? The Exonian’s reliance on certain quotes primed the reader to believe that these sentiments were shared by a majority of the student body, when the reality could’ve been to the contrary.
The article’s statistics are mixed at best. To the paper’s credit, some data is quite compelling, especially the section on Trustee assignments. However, other case studies didn’t carry the same statistical gravity. Two years of data is not enough time to prove or disprove a perception, particularly in terms of racial bias.
To be fair, The Exonian did not attempt to analyze or claim such a pattern. In its place, students did. And this carries some problems, because the graphs looked more alarming than the statistics behind them. On some counts, the difference between the student body makeup and Dolan’s counselees, placed in terms of actual counselees, is negligible. Even in the most glaring cases, she was only off the mark by a few students. We don’t mean to discount the potential existence of a disparity—rather, we point out that the prevalent student response to some of the data was based on statistically insignificant information that did not show a tremendous disparity to begin with.
It does seem strange to us that an individual, lauded by many faculty members we’ve spoken to for her commitment to equity, would be biased in selecting counselees. In the end, the reasons may be more complex than they seem—the racial makeup, for instance could’ve been coincidental. Personal conversation with the article’s authors indicate that they might agree. The overarching narrative was a misconstruction of the data that doesn’t really fit in with the results or the rest of the article.
In light of that and its special obligations as a community publication, The Exonian should’ve put its data into better context. If they translated the graph into actual counselees, for instance, some of our preconceived notions would have been shattered. Regardless, should only two years of data get a chart to begin with? It is our belief that The Exonian should have acknowledged its limitations more formally, pointing out where data sample sizes were small and providing a formal rationale. It shouldn’t have drawn special attention to that less than significant data by placing it in a sizable graph.
Finally, we have questions about the authors’ choice to hide their names. Though understandable, anonymous journalism is inconsistent with the pursuit of transparency outlined in Suan Lee’s editorial. While the Executive Board may have attempted to protect its staff writers, journalism compels authors to take responsibility for their work and remain open to criticism. Moreover, those staff writers who didn’t participate in the article were automatically associated with it by virtue of the byline—and we certainly had no choice in the matter.
For all our criticism of The Exonian, we believe that this saga reflects more poorly on the student body’s tendency to sensationalize. The Board made an effort to encourage students against misinterpretation of their statistics and to quell vitriolic student reactions through their editorial, which we admire them for, but many failed to heed their call. The Board even asked staff writers to not sensationalize, but many continued to spread the “tea.” Certainly, some of the article’s structure may have fanned these flames, despite the Board’s efforts to prevent just that.
Exeter’s popular response speaks to the misguided priorities of our student body. The Exonian regularly features material that should be just as concerning as potential bias in the College Counseling Office: poor mental health, theft, and so on. Yet, it took an article on college for the paper to spark a reaction in the community. Are we so hell-bent on getting into a “good” college that we eschew discussion on equally-pressing issues to condemn CCO? What does that say about us—as students, as people?
We believe that The Exonian should exercise its right to free journalism. Concurrently, we believe The Exonian did not present its findings in a way that primed the student body to react appropriately. Yes, we are splitting hairs in our analysis of The Exonian’s investigation—our suggestions for improvement may seem trivial. Nevertheless, with a subject matter of this gravity, splitting hairs might just be the necessary thing to do.