Statement of Defense Regarding SCMB “Emergency” Meeting Called by Dean Patricia Carter for Tuesday, November 7, 2000 to address INNOVATOR issue dated October 31, 2000 in Response to Response by Dr. Roger K. Oden

by Margaret L. Hosty, contributing writer to the INNOVATOR of the article in question

Dr. Roger K. Oden has published and posted an accusation of irresponsible journalism and defamation against the INNOVATOR, and specifically, myself and the paper’s current advisor, Dr. Geoffrey de Laforcade.  Dr. Oden states that the article which I authored and which appeared in the issue in question, entitled “De Laforcade’s Dispute Reaches 3^rd Phase Arbitration,” is “ a collection of untruths.”  Oden also states that he believes that the writing was done “with the intent and purpose to damage (his) reputation,"and that he will “vigorously defend (his name), person, and reputation against defamation."

As to charges of defamation, please allow me to share with the SCMB (and GSU community, in general) what the law has to say about defamation. Defamation law

“encompasses injury both by written words (libel) or spoken words (slander).”    In order for any comments (written or remarked) to be recognized under the law as being defamatory/libelous (which is what Oden contends in stating the article is a collection of untruths), four elements are examined: publication, identification, harm, and fault. (This is referred to as the PIHF checklist.)

Certainly the article about Oden was published, and certainly he was identified, but the issue gets much more complicated after that. “The plaintiff (i.e., Oden) must prove that the statement(s) harmed his or her reputation in the eyes of the members of the community.”  Oden has not proven (to date) that the article harmed his reputation, although it certainly may have caused him some embarrassment and stress.  Stress and embarrassment brought on by the publication of responsibly reported truthful statements, however, does not incriminate the person who reported them in being found at fault.

Fault is crucial in determining whether or not the individual was actually defamed by the publication.  “The plaintiff (i.e., Oden) must show that the defendant (i.e., the author and/or the paper) was at fault in publishing the statement(s).  There can be no liability without fault.”  In other words, the person making the accusation of defamation (and irresponsible journalism) “must prove that (I/we) did something (I/we) should not have done…or that (I/we) failed to do something which (I/we) should have done….If (I/we) did everything a reasonable reporter should do to verify the information in (my/our) story before publishing it, (I/we) are not at fault.”

In my/our defense, per the paper’s understanding, the following actions and documents exist to substantiate that Oden was not defamed (in the eyes of the law), and that all reasonable measures were taken to validate the contents of the article in question prior to its having been published:

·        Editor-in-Chief Jeni Porche, over the summer, sent emails to all of the individuals who wrote letters of commendation on De Laforcade’s behalf (approximately 2 dozen, if memory serves—she would know better the exact number), in which she sought to obtain additional information and perspectives on the matter reported, of which she should be able to produce time and date verifications via the Internet mailing system.

·        Dean Oden was provided with a list of questions regarding the matter, forwarded to him via his secretary Belinda Hudson (via email also), prior to the paper’s going to press.  A copy of the questions is available to all interested parties. 

·        Oden emailed his response, declining to comment on the matter.  A copy is available to all interested parties.

·        The  documentation to validate the information given in the article (and from whence the direct quotations derive) are as follows, copies of which are also available:

·        Dr. De Laforcade’s official grievance statement;

·        A copy of the email sent by De Laforcade to Stuart Fagan;

·        Article 17 of the university/union faculty contract, which details the grievance procedure;

·        A copy of Woodard’s initial ruling;

·        A copy of Oden’s response;

·        A copy of the questions forwarded to Oden prior to publication; and

·        A copy of the letter which Oden wrote regarding promises he made on behalf De Laforcade’s wife.

In addition to these documents, Oden contends that, of the things which I wrote, I “know they are untrue.”  All of the documents in my possession (and I was present at the second –taped—hearing when Katz read the information about the adjuncts, and when De Laforcade discovered his mail moved and opened) indicates that (I/we) had done everything within our powers so far as reasonable measures were taken to validate the information prior to the article’s being published, which negates, essentially, the fourth element of fault, and therefore, Oden’s allegations should not be recognized under the precepts established by defamation laws.  What charge, then, can he levy at (me/us) that we failed to address in attempting to verify the information? “If (I/we) did everything a reasonable reporter should do to verify the information in (my/our) story before publishing it, (I/we) (am/are) not at fault.”

Additionally, “actual malice [is a ] legal term that…requires that the person who claims he was libeled prove that the challenged statement was published by people who either knew it was false or were reckless in verifying its accuracy.”  Oden, in challenging the article as being “a collection of untruths,” has not (and will not be able to) prove that (I/we) knew the information was false (or even if it is false) or that (I/we) were in any way reckless in our attempts to validate the information prior to going to press.

The fact that Oden claims he was defamed and that my article “is a collection of untruths”, therefore, does not mean in any way that he is correct, and that the law will (or does) acknowledge that he was in any way, shape, or form defamed, or that (I/we) acted irresponsibly, as the documentation exists to support each of the statements regarding them as written in the article. The burden of proof lies with Oden that (I/we) were reckless in our validation measures and reporting and that the article was published knowingly containing false information.

Additionally, a careful reading of the article reveals that the contentions made about Oden purported to be mine are actually those of Dr. de Laforcade, as the article reflects his official position so far as the union is concerned regarding the grievance: At no time are there statements made by me about Oden’s ethics or actions—I simply relayed the information provided to me by de Laforcade.  The public attacking of the reporter conveying the interviewee’s sentiments is comparable to Diane Sawyer’s being attacked for statements Gore shares with her about Bush; the contentions are attributed to de Laforcade, and not my own, as the piece is a straight news article.

I ask that this document be read in the event of my absence at the SCMB meeting called to address this matter, and do hereby offer to provide copies to the SCMB of all the documents which support claims of reasonable measures being taken to ensure the validity of our information prior to publication of the article, as well as photocopied pages of the defamation regulations provided in the publication cited in this document.

·        All quotations are derived from the publication entitled “Law of the Student Press,” second edition, November 1994, from the chapter on defamation laws.  The book is a publication of The Student Press Law Center, operating out of Arlington, VA.