Editor's note: 'DP' response

To our readers: The reporter followed our normal procedures for dealing with reports of a crime -- contacting the police for details while trying to ascertain the identity of the victim in order to get her account of the incident, which he was unable to do. Detailed information from the police, however, was scarce, a point the article clearly stated. The article also included all of the other data that we knew as of press time: that the victim had suffered multiple cuts and bruises to her hands and face, but had not suffered serious physical injuries. More importantly, police said both Sunday and Monday that the reported assault was not of a sexual nature, and was not being investigated by their sex-crimes unit. Absent any reason to doubt the police information, we reported that the incident, whose motive was unclear, remained under investigation. Normally, this sort of explanation about how we put a story together would never appear in our pages. In this case, though, numerous students have contacted us to express anger or confusion about the article, and discussions about the reported attack and our coverage of it have taken place throughout campus and on various student groups' listservs. These questions deserve a response. First, let me explain our rationale in running the story --Eindeed, in running any story about a possible attack. As journalists, we hold ourselves to the highest standards of accuracy and fairness. At the same time, we recognize that we work in a college environment, where all of our stories affect students we know. Our philosophy is that the public has a right to know all relevant details about a possible crime, both to dispel any rumors and to give an accurate picture of the campus' relative safety. Such a policy is rarely popular, but is almost always necessary -- as it was in this case. Sunday night, we were left with a choice between reporting what we knew while stating clearly what we didn't, or ignoring a violent incident that was already the subject of rumor and confusion. We chose the former, and I continue to believe that it was the right choice. Let me address some specific questions. First, several readers wondered why we reported that the student was "allegedly attacked." Isn't the student's report to police, combined with her physical injuries, enough proof that something took place? Regrettably, the answer is no. As students and as people, our hearts go out to any student who suffers a crime as horrific and terrifying as this one is reported to be. At the same time, as a newspaper, we need to always remind our readers that a crime is not a crime until it is proven, conclusively, to have occurred. In a highly unusual 1997 incident, for example, a student reported being assaulted in the Veterinary School, an incident later said to have been "unfounded." Police concluded there was no evidence that a "criminal act occurred." While there is no reason to doubt the student who reported the Steinberg-Dietrich assault, the possibility -- no matter how slight -- that the report may not turn out to be a crime means that we must still exercise caution in our descriptions of the incident. At the same time, we make it our policy to always use the word "alleged" in referring to a reported attack until the perpetrator has been proven guilty. Stating a reported crime as fact would, by definition, mean that the person reported to have committed the crime had actually done so -- a statement that would clearly violate the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim that is a cornerstone of our legal system and way of life. And while a letter writer questions the story's position on our front page, the article actually ran above -- and had a more prominent headline -- than a second police-related story on a hit-and-run that critically injured a former Temple University student. Finally, while sources close to the victim dispute the police's account of the incident, the nature of our job requires us to rely on information from the police unless we know otherwise. In this case, since the victim has perhaps understandibly refused to comment, we don't have any evidence to doubt the police account --Ealthough we are continuing to seek information on the incident from anyone who may have it. We recognize, to close, the seriousness and importance of this incident -- after all, a student may well have faced a life-threatening attack inside an ostensibly safe Penn building. Still, we must be careful to only report what we know to be true, not simply what we -- or anyone else -- believe to be the case. No matter how controversial such a policy may be, the alternative would be unthinkable. Yochi Dreazen Managing Editor, The Daily Pennsylvanian