Last Thursday, The Eagle reported that Housing and Dining is in the development stages of a new program named EagleEye, which "will gather information about resident students' personal life, academics, social life and overall AU experience that AU officials will then track."
At first appearance, it is EagleEye that deserves criticism.
The Eagle reported the program's "formal purpose is to increase interaction" between students and Resident Assistants. But do we really think that student-RA interaction is best when ordered by a campus office? Quantity will increase, but shouldn't the real concern be quality?
The Eagle reported that Rick Treter, director of Residence Life, denied "an online database of student information would exist in connection with the EagleEye program" but then later in the same paragraph states "RAs will enter information about the student into an online program." What business does Housing and Dining have collecting personal information, with the only plan to "eventually" delete the records?
But while Housing and Dining has questions to answer, larger questions need to be answered by this newspaper.
Don't parts of the EagleEye description seem contradictory? Doesn't it seem odd that Chris Moody, Executive Director of Housing and Dining, has barely a mention? Why were no representatives from the Student Government or Resident Housing Association interviewed? Is it strange that no RA was directly quoted, nor any students this program might effect?
If this is to be the level of journalism at AU, we should be ashamed of ourselves. With generic and repetitious writing, obvious contradictions, overuse of undisclosed sources and vague research, we should have significant concerns about "Housing and Dining to conduct new student monitoring program." Given those concerns, can we really trust the reporting in the article?
Housing and Dining is not off the hook. -Before the program's development is complete, we should expect full disclosure of the intricate details about the purpose, privacy policy and restrictions on the sale of data EagleEye collected. We have no reason to believe Housing and Dining means to hide these facts, so we should give them the fair chance to present their case for EagleEye.
The Eagle, however, has already had its chance - and it failed miserably. This newspaper has done an unfaithful and embarrassing job of investigating and reporting an issue that has serious ramifications for students. In a time of increased transparency at AU, an article in The Eagle should not create more questions than it answers, as this one does. It should not be published as "Breaking News." It should not even be published. Many people have stopped reading The Eagle because they have stopped trusting The Eagle. After articles such as this, it's not difficult to see why.
We need immediate action by the SG and RHA, hand-in-hand with the student body, to investigate EagleEye, ask tough questions and require strict privacy guidelines and assurances that data on AU students will not be misused, sold or shared. Housing and Dining wants to put an EagleEye on us. Respond by putting one on them.
But more importantly, demand that our student newspaper do better. Require that The Eagle investigate critically, ask real questions and report issues in a manner that is fair to its subject and to its audience. Only by adhering to the highest journalistic standard will The Eagle re-earn students' trust.
We should expect nothing less.
Carl Seip is a senior in The School of Public Affairs and the AU Issues columnist for The Eagle. You can reach him at edpage@theeagleonline.com.
For The Eagle editors' response to this column, please visit The Eagle's ombudsman blog, Eyes on The Eagle, at blogs.theeagleonline.com/eyesontheeagle.
