“Before going forward in any criminal case, we must feel confident that a crime has been committed and that the person charged is the person who committed the crime,”

What a joke.

Since when is it the practice of The Hoya to identify investigated students by name?

This is so reminiscent of the Duke Lax scandal. Ridiculous; the school and the entire student community owes Cooney an apology.

Heaven forbid the DOJ would try to investigate a crime before ruining somebody's name and reputation. Maybe they should hire Nifong to lead the inquisition.

As at Duke, the jurisprudential butchering of this case will rally support around the suspect and will only serve to detract attention from very, very real social problems on campus--in this case, homophobia. Oh well.

Regardless of whether Cooney did this or not, I really don't think his name should have been released in the Hoya. The issue deserves attention all the same because the fact remains that a hate crime was committed (by someone), but if there's no legal proof, what good can come of putting someone's name out there without all the facts? It's a bad idea either way.

I should preface this comment by saying that I was the editor in chief of The Hoya when news of Cooney's arrest first broke.

I think that the few of you who have suggested that The Hoya should not have printed Cooney's name are wrong -- it's The Hoya's responsibility to print what's newsworthy on this campus, and Cooney's arrest and legal proceedings were absolutely newsworthy. Additionally, there was a lot of speculation going around campus after news of this alleged hate crime broke out, and The Hoya was right to set the record straight by telling the facts.

The Hoya never in any of its articles implied that Cooney was guilty of any of these charges, nor did it imply that he was innocent -- it simply reported the facts as they happened. In fact, The Hoya was very responsible not to slander Cooney's name unnecessarily, as it extensively quoted his attorney speaking about how he felt that the evidence against Cooney was slim, and quoted Cooney's friends testifying to his strong character.

People who read that Cooney was arrested and jumped to the seemingly erroneous conclusion that he was guilty have nobody but themselves to blame.

I am not affiliated with The Hoya, but I agree with Max.

Cooney's arrest was a matter of public record and there is no reason, legal or ethical, why The Hoya should not have printed it in its earlier stories or this one. Cooney was not a minor nor was he identified as a victim, and there were no confidentiality rules in place that would bar the printing of his name. While he certainly endured negative consequences as a result of being arrested for this crime (as usual), withholding his name would have damaged transparency and openness; Georgetown deserves both. Had The Hoya refused to publish Cooney's name, it would have been irrelevant as other publications (such as the Washington Post) printed it. The Hoya handled the case well - never implying guilt - and, without that, it is likely that the rumor mill would have turned anyway and more significantly damaged Cooney's name. If The Hoya published his personal address, class schedule, phone number and email address, I would agree that it had gone too far, but reporting the important facts that are available publicly is the newspaper's obligation to the campus. Those who assume that printing the name of an arrested person necessarily implies guilt have, as mentioned above by Max, nobody but themselves to blame.

I'd also be interested to see any *evidence*, beyond mere assertion, that the handling of this case even starts to approach the mishandling of the Duke case.

When do we get to find out the name of the person that slandered Cooney? That certainly seems newsworthy now.

Why do you presume it's "slander"? The US Attorney deciding not to go forth with the prosecution has no bearing on the earnestness of the identification of Cooney as a suspect; it simply means that the US Attorney doesn't believe that it was enough evidence for a conviction. It doesn't necessarily mean that the person was intentionally lying in order to defame Cooney. The difference is important. We should not open up victims of crimes to civil suits just because prosecutors don't believe there was sufficient evidence for a conviction.

The rush to blame the victim and compare this case to the Duke one is a worrying portent for the analytical capacities of hoyas - especially since I suspect there are many future lawyers in the bunch.

Now after 8 months of sorrow, disgrace, slander, pain, financial hardship and being wrongfully accused...Who;s the victim Now????....the person wrongfully accused !... Shameful display of criminal justice....The criminal still runs free b/c of horrendous,botched police work... WE don't know how you feel now but this case should make all of you living in the Georgetown area very nervous....Now any of you can be wrongfully accused and arrested.....Finally, to the Hoya publishers..it was your writers voice that Arrested, Tried and convicted this outstanding young man...Your writer's voice wasn't subtle...It was reverse racial profiling..... this time it was the heterosexual, rugby student who was profiled. Shame on you and the police.

Clark raises good points, but there were serious questions about the identification process prior to the arrest and they have never been adequately explained. The story in news reports went that friends of the victim overheard people discussing the incident in class (not Cooney), and that eventually led to the victim identifying Cooney on Facebook. It is in the public record, however, that the person identified as having the conversation denied having this conversation when questioned by police - prior to Cooney's arrest. So it is a legitimate question as to how the i.d. did come about if the original explanation the victim gave did not hold up. While it is true that "We should not open up victims of crimes to civil suits just because prosecutors don't believe there was sufficient evidence for a conviction," neither should anyone who falsely accuses someone be able to hide behind anonymity. It is totally legitimate to question why Cooney was ever implicated in the first place, and to hold someone responsible if he was targeted for some reason other than an honest mistake.

I suspect that those questions are the reason why the prosecution felt that there wasn't enough evidence to try to convict Cooney for this particular crime. Yet the insufficiency of evidence to convict Cooney is not enough evidence to indicate that the victim intentionally lied to hurt the reputation of Cooney in the first place. Let's think about it in concrete terms: you get mugged on the way back from a night at the Tombs and then you see someone on facebook who you think looks a lot like the mugger; you go to the police and report this, but the prosecutor decides not to take it to trial because there is no evidence other than this online identification. Does that mean that you didn't believe *in good faith* that the person you identified was your attacker? Should that person, who we presume that you identified in good faith, now be able to sue you for defamation because of the prosecutor's decision? The two arguments presented here ("the identification wasn't good enough evidence" and "the victim slandered Cooney") are quite separate claims and people need to be intelligent enough to distinguish between the two before making outlandish assertions. There is a compelling reason that the victim's name should not be released here: this would create a significant chilling effect for the reporting of crimes. It's reasonable to believe that certain crimes (rape, for example) are underreported and causing them to be even *more* underreported is a bad idea - regardless of a few high profile anecdotes. That people would rush to compare this to the Duke case, pin unproven allegations of slander upon the victim, and blame The Hoya for printing relevant, publicly available information is all rather foolish.

Max, I was so heartened to read that you are the former editor if The Hoya. Your lack of editorial judgement regarding this story is outstanding. It places you within the journalistic mastery of Jayson Blair and Hal Raines. I suggest you go back and read the articles published by The Hoya. An innocent man of outstanding character was sullied by your newspaper and you were at the helm of the ship. Your compass was not sound editorial judgment grounded in respect for the accuser and the accused. You decided to let the winds of popular opinion and passions of the moment guide the editorial policy of The Hoya. Yes Cooney's name was public record but so was his accuser. Why was he allowed to remain the anonymous? Can you say for certain that the Hoya only published "the facts" as you assert? Can you not see that an innocent man was wrongly accused and your paper lacked the judgment and temperament to distill the facts clearly? Lastly, it has been said that you are in possession of many letters attesting to Cooney's exemplary character. Is this true? If yes, shouldn't those "facts" be made known to the world?

Clark - Totally agreed that Cooney being innocent doesn't mean that the victim purposefully misidentified him, but the possibility should be considered, and if it is the case, he should be exposed. Underreported crimes are a serious problem, but you must concede that the burden of proof to get an arrest warrant in this case was frighteningly low. I'm really surprised that you can't see the parallels to the Duke case - sketchy i.d., no evidence, witch-hunt mentality, vilification in the media, rush to judgment, hideous comments about the suspects in heinous blogs. I really think it's too bad that you seem so eager to protect the victim from charges of slander, and the Hoya from criticism, but you haven't registered an ounce of concern for the debacle that has caused Philip Cooney, his friends and family, so much agony.

Max, former editor of the Hoya. Let's not kid yourself that the coverage was in any way balanced. Any positive mention of Philip Cooney's character, or his lawyer's comments, came three-quarters of the way down the page in every story; case in point above. Everyone learns in Journalism 101 that the lead paragraphs are the only thing anyone remembers, so your structure was clearly a design to put the accusations first; the denials second.

Even when the charges were dropped, the focus of this story is really a re-hash of the details of the crime, and the Hoya still has it written as if Cooney were responsible: "Cooney was accused of the reported assault after an initial identification through his Facebook profile. If Cooney had been convicted, he would have faced 270 days in jail, probation and a $1,500 fine. In October, Cooney turned down a plea offer, pleading not guilty. Cooney was alleged to have shouted homophobic slurs and to have assaulted a student in a reported hate crime on Sept. 9..." The "reporter" in this case just drumming Cooney's name unnecessarily, thereby connecting him yet again with the acts described.

I'll bet the next thing the Hoya puts out is an op-ed to the effect that it's too bad Philip's inconvenient innocence might mar the important cause of fighting homophobia on campus. Fighting intolerance and prejudice is vital, but every student at Georgetown should be up in arms about the unfair arrest of Philip Cooney. After all, next time, it might be someone you know, taken out of their dorm in handcuffs, without even knowing the reason why.

It's interesting to note the decided lack of interest by the DC media (print, radio and television) in the charges being dropped compared to the outrage over the "hate crime" when he was originally charged.
I can't imagine the anguish of Philip, his family, and friends as he went through this nightmare, as well as the thousands and thousands in legal fees. Hopefully, he'll be reimbursed by the Justice Department. Fat chance...

Every Google search for Philip Cooney connects his name to the accusation insulting him and his family. To heal part of the anguish, the Hoya should spread the news to these sites and DC media and follow up on the dropped charges to clear Cooney's name. All media, including the Hoya owe it to Phil, his family, friends for your guilty until proven innocent approach.

Did any of you even read The Hoya's coverage of this event?

The first story, on Sept. 28, merely outlined that an arrest warrant had been issues. NBC4 had already printed his name, so The Hoya keeping it quiet would have merely made its coverage more limited rather than done a whole lot to protect him.

The second story on Oct. 2 stressed that Cooney was maintaining his innocence. That story quoted two Georgetown students, one of whom acknowledged that he was openly gay, vouching for Cooney's high character. No students were quoted questioning Cooney's character.

That same day, The Hoya published a viewpoint by a student who urged the community to withhold judgment on the issue. Don't assume guilt, it urged.

Next, on Oct. 16, the newspaper reported that Cooney had turned down a plea deal, pleaded not guilty, and maintained his innocence.

Finally, The Hoya reported that charges had been dropped.

So I don't really get what the problem is. The facts were reported and they seem to have been reported fairly -- perhaps even erring on the side of being overly emphatic that Cooney had NOT been proven guilty.

I realize that the police probably mishandled this, but The Hoya is not a legal body. It cannot throw out charges because IT didn't agree with the identification process. As Max said, if anyone presumed he was guilty because he was charged, then it is their own fault.

Why don't you run a piece that tries to peer into what it must have been like being Philip Cooney over the past 9 months? Maybe put yourself into his shoes for once. This was one heck of a witch hunt.

By the way, it may bear mentioning that Cooney has not be *proven* innocent. He has not been proven guilty and must now as ever been assumed innocent, but the dismissal of all charges does not PROVE that he is innocent, merely that they cannot prove he is guilty. It swings both ways.

Under the eyes of the law, he IS innocent and under no obligation to, your words, prove his innocence. So, regarding your both ways comment, there is only one way: you ARE innocent until proven guilty, period.

John A:

Under the eyes of the law, presumption of innocence is not proof of innocence. A minor point, but a point nonetheless. The american legeal system generally never proves innocence. You are presumed innocent until found guilty. Practically, it amounts to the same thing, but in a rigorous sense, there's a difference.

Also, technically, if you are not actively within the framework of the legal ssystem, you aren't considered positively innocent OR guilty in the eyes of the law. It's not like a neutral right conferred by the Constitution, e.g. the right to bear arms. Legal characteristics of guilt and innocence are attached only upon an individual engaging - sua sponte or otherwise - with the legal framework of the state. (meaning, practically, entering the court system). The only neutral characteristic that attaches to all citizens is a presumption of innocence.

In general, Americans seem - at least to the academic sorts trying to understand the law as a normative body - to be uncomfortable with having the legal system do the heavy lifting of positive declarations of this sort. We'd rather leave it to social, moral, religious networks.

Contrary to your comment (and somewhat ironically) - about the only way that we'd say the law is willing to go out on the limb and find someone to BE innocent - not presumed innocent, but actually established AS innocent - is through a full trial wherein, at the end of the day, he or she is found not guilty. That's the small % of the time that we'd say anglo-american law finds some IS innocent.

Did anyone enjoy reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it?

John A., you're actually wrong about the guilty/innocence distinction. You are not proven innocent or guilty (unless a court issues a certificate of innocence, required to get out of jail when you have been wrongfully convicted), you are proven guilty or not guilty.

You are *assumed* innocent in the eyes of the law. Guilt and innocence is a statement of truth, and an acquittal simply means there was not enough information to convict you. A not guilty ruling is not sufficient for factual innocence.

So no, you are not "innocent until proven guilty."

The fact of the matter is, people will jump to the conclusion that Cooney did something wrong. It's completely ignorant to say, "hey, it's not our fault if the jump to that conclusion", because you need to realize that no matter what, they will jump to some sort of conclusion - and any conclusion you can think of will be a bad one. If you associate Cooney and violent hate crime, and tell the whole school through the newspaper that authorities suspect him of doing it, it will obviously hurt his reputation.

Hey, how about in the next issue of the Hoya, we get some bogus kid to say you did something you were completely innocent of, and then we can report on the front page, "MAX THE EDITOR OF THE HOYA ALLEGEDLY MURDERED 20 HOMELESS PEOPLE AND HAS BEEN ARRESTED BY THE AUTHORITIES!"

Yeah, that'll probably go over really really well with your family, friends, and any one who might want to hire you for an internship. But it hasn't been proven yet, so people shouldn't jump to conclusions. We'll just be reporting the facts. No need to think of the possible consequences it can have on you, right? Right.

The Hoya always prints the name of people involved in cases - they´ve even printed the names of crime victims (kudoos to Moises Mendoza) when even DC local TV didn´t out of respect for the victim. So much for journalism!

I certainly hope Cooney does not have to suffer too much as a result of all this, if he is indeed innocent, and I certainly don't know who is to blame for the bias-related incident, but I'm just worried that all of this might detract from the real issue -- homophobia at Georgetown.

The Hoya refrains from printing baseless allegations from some "bogus kid" (as you put it in your example), as it should. The difference in this case is that the allegation was not simply coming from a "bogus kid," but from the D.C. Police Department and from the District Attorney's Office. It really all comes down to the credibility of the sources; these offices are obviously far from infallible, but their allegations meet the level of credibility required for The Hoya to take them seriously.

When one is falsely charged with a certain crime, it's the fault of the authorities that made the false accusation that the person's name was dragged through the mud. The Hoya simply reported the public record, and rather pressing and pertinent public record at that. Now that the record has been cleared, The Hoya has continued to cover the facts of the case by writing this story.

Believe me, I deeply sympathize for individuals like Cooney whose lifes are seriously damaged by false charges. But the precedent that you are seemingly suggesting -- that media outlets do not report the names of the accused until they are found guilty by a jury of their peers -- really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Do you think that news organizations should have witheld Timothy McVeight's name until he was found guilty in June 1997, over two years after the Oklahoma City Bombing? If you can accept that standard, then fair enough. But I think that as a society we've decided that this would be unnacceptable, and are willing to accept that certain people's names may be slandered when sources who are generally credible make false accusations.

And further, it is most certainly the responsibility of news organizations to report when charges against individuals are dropped, just as it's their responsibility to report when those charges are filed. I commend The Hoya -- whose editorial staff I have retired from -- for making this decision. If other local news networks have not done so, then I think you have a legitimate gripe with them.

It frustrates me that people blame The Hoya as the reason for a slandering of Phil's name. Had The Hoya not reported on the incident it truly would have been doing a disservice as it would be allowing rumors to spread without and official record being published. Everyone should read the post by 'actual reader' before coming to any conclusion that any of the hardship is the fault of The Hoya. Go to the police who arrested a college kid without sufficient evidence to convict him. Go to the prosecutor who dragged this on for months while knowing it was a lost fight from the start.

I also am offended by people saying "and I'm sorry for Phil, if he didn't do it"

No more if. Charges dropped. If you know something the detectives don't, share it. But at this point, he's no more likely to have committed this horrible crime than anyone is. His name just got attached to it by a false identification.

Finally, I don't think the victim's name is public record so there is no way to get it. If it is public record and you can find it, email The Hoya. I'm sure it will be glad to have the new information. Until then, leave journalism to the journalists or brush up on the law before criticizing a decision that wasn't The Hoya's.

A few blogs have raised an interesting question about whether GU and the US Attorney's decision might be influenced by Cooney's ties to the White House. Even if Cooney is innocent, I think it's helpful to remind ourselves that politics plays some role in the decisions of the justice system and with the GU administration.

"Cooney, of Texas, has been reported to be the son of Philip Anderton Cooney Sr., a former member of President George W. Bush's administration. The elder Cooney resigned from the White House's Council on Environmental Quality in 2005. Charges arose after his departure that he had manipulated government reports to downplay the role of greenhouse gasses in climate change." - Metro Weekly

That is an interesting point.

How do you think the Georgetown administration was affected? It took no stance on the matter, didn't discipline, and waited for the case to play out in the legal system.

"Finally, I don't think the victim's name is public record so there is no way to get it. If it is public record and you can find it, email The Hoya. I'm sure it will be glad to have the new information."

really, "richie?"

regardless of who did it, why don't you try getting hate crimed before you go and decide who does and doesn't deserve anonymity in a case like this.

sure you might say, "if it were me i'd be public about it and do something to make a difference," but unless you know what it's like, and unless you are the person who suffered this particular crime, you can't say anything even remotely close to that.

talk about bad journalism - publishing the name of someone who wishes to be kept anonymous after they were attacked (by whomever the attacker may have been) for their PERCEIVED sexual orientation.

homophobia on campus is definitely still the bigger issue here.

For the record, The Hoya did have the victim's name, but chose not to print it. It was our policy not to release the name of a hate-crime victim who wished to remain anonymous.

"Under the eyes of the law, presumption of innocence is not proof of innocence. A minor point, but a point nonetheless. The american legeal system generally never proves innocence. You are presumed innocent until found guilty. Practically, it amounts to the same thing, but in a rigorous sense, there's a difference."

Others have covered this, but I just want to make a point as well, tying it to the Duke case. There, while there was no trial, we had the (new?) District Attorney or whomever openly proclaim that the accused were innocent. Not just cleared of charges. Here, the charges have simply been dropped because there isn't enough evidence to prosecute. Even if it was Cooney, there is no way for them to prove it with what they had. Thus, end of story.

As for this whole print the victim's name business, most news organizations do not print the name of a victim of sexual harassment, etc. out of respect for the victim. So long as the victim here claims it was a hate crime and it is pursued as such (whomever the attacker is), he should not be named. It is a shame that Cooney has had to suffer all year, but I do not think the victim had it out for HIM specifically; he probably honestly thought this was who attacked him. It happens, and it hurts when you may be wrong, but such as life. Dragging his name through the mud is not right, either.

Since the statement was not included in the Hoya's article, people might want to read it (from the WUSA Channel 9 website):

Cooney's attorney Danny Onorato, gave 9NEWS NOW the following statement:

"Philip Cooney did not commit this crime. Philip was always completely innocent of the charges against him and the dismissal of the case has vindicated him entirely."

"To know Philip Cooney is to know a young man of exemplary character who was wrongfully accused in this case. Despite the high profile nature of this case, Philip, at all times, conducted himself with great focus and dignity. He is truly an extraordinary young man."

"The Cooney family would like to thank all of their friends and family members for their support, prayers and staunch belief in Philip?s innocence from the moment this ordeal began last fall

I meant the whole statement wasn't included.

I hope that the Hoya has a good reason for this one (reporting with the person's name). Please let us know... possibly with an explanation in the Hoya. Email me the explanation, if there is one.

Why would you look up some random dude on facebook and then turn him in as your accuser because he looked similar to the guy you think attacked you so his name could be dragged through the mud?? Why don't we see any fault in that?

I thought the whole foundation of the "we have a problem with gender and sexual orientation" argument used against GUGS was founded on the Cooney incident. The gay community at Georgetown gained incredible power and influence using this entire debacle to seize the moral high ground. Their whole argument was predicated on the fact that they believed that a Georgetown student was responsible. For all we know, the student that was attacked was attacked by some schmo from American or GW.

The continued claims of homophobia against Georgetown are an attempt by gay student groups to gain power and influence on campus.

i've been a student at georgetown and at duke. this does remind me of the lax case. however, the most important point i'd like to make is how ridiculous and unconstitutional the idea of a "hate crime" is.

a crime is a crime. making crimes against certain groups worse than against others is discriminatory as all people should be treated as individuals and not members of a "collective" group. I realize many people never even think about it this way, but i certainly do not understand why the crime for assaulting a person because of their sexuality is any worse or different than assaulting a person you do not like at a bar or to rob them of their possessions.

hate crimes are unconstitutional for many reasons, the most important of which is freedom of speech. you should be allowed the opportunity to say whatever you want, no matter how hateful. i do not condone the speech that was supposedly used against the alleged victim, but i support the right of all Americans to say as they please.

in closing, a crime is a crime regardless of the group someone places him in. just another giant step away from the constitution and towards a less free society.

The police acted reasonably given that the victim accused Cooney of the act and identified him as a suspect. The victim who accused Cooney is the one who damaged his reputation. He should be suspended from the university for all of the trouble that his lies caused.

Doesn’t anyone see a problem with making Scott Chessare and Olivia Chitayat the cause celebres of the year less than a week after Philip Cooney was cleared, both legally and internally at the university, of the crime which was the entire cornerstone of their campaign? GU Pride has credited the September hate crime (which was actually a simple assault, a misdemeanor), being perpetrated on a Georgetown student by a Georgetown student, as providing the impetus for their whole campaign. Celebrating their triumph is yet another slap in the face to Philip Cooney, who was falsely accused of that crime. Those who contend, as written in some blogs, that homophobia on campus is still the greater issue, are wrong. There is no greater issue that someone being arrested on a phony i.d., with the powers that be – the media, the police department, and the university all being complicit - on behalf of a cause. Whether the resource center belongs on campus or not, GU Pride’s number one bargaining chip has been based on worst case – a lie; best case, a very unfortunate mistake. The person of
the year is Philip Cooney, who endured vicious, hateful attacks
against his character for a crime he didn’t commit, and who did so with a temperance and fortitude few could match

I grew up with Philip. And as I'm sure you already are aware that there was a significant outcry of support from Philip's friends and family members from the beginning. Many people were upset about the apparent mishandling of the case from the get-go. Some of these supporters, including myself, are gay.

Philip is one of the most genuine, compassionate, fair, and TOLERANT people I know. It is very upsetting to see that his name has been sullied by these charges.

Reading some of the postings above that suggest somehow politics played a role in the charges being dropped is quite disappointing. That kind of unfounded statement only seeks to hurt an innocent man. Furthermore, it detracts significantly from the gravity of the crime that occurred.

Those that think The Hoya should release the name of the victim now have a valid point.

Seeing as how the hate/bias specification was dropped weeks before Philip was cleared of the charges, one could argue it wouldn't be breaking with the paper's "policy not to release the name of a hate-crime victim who wished to remain anonymous."

I would argue however that releasing this individual's name would only hurt his reputation. It is likely that many readers would assume only the worst of him--- just as they did with Philip.

Max, you wrote that "it is most certainly the responsibility of news organizations to report when charges against individuals are dropped, just as it's their responsibility to report when those charges are filed. I commend The Hoya [...] for making this decision."

Kudos to the Hoya for *keeping up* with the trial! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any Hoya article that mentioned the lessening of the charges earlier this spring. Was your staff aware that the charges were lightened to a "simple assault" weeks before the charges were dropped altogether? Other papers reported it.

Max, you also wrote that "It really all comes down to the credibility of the sources; these offices are obviously far from infallible, but their allegations meet the level of credibility required for The Hoya to take them seriously."

What kind of journalism is going on at The Hoya?! Several trial postponements, prosecutor shell-games, significant delays in judicial and university response, police that were unable to positively identify the student in class that was ALLEGEDLY overheard talking about the incident. If your sources have this kind of credibility it is time to SEEK OUT MORE SOURCES.

I doubt it was this paper's agenda to do damage to his reputation personally. That being said, harm has been done. It is incorrect and irresponsible to say, as you have, that it is the "fault of the authorities that made the false accusation that the person's name was dragged through the mud."

The Press has a responsibility as well. Indeed one could argue that the news-media's responsibility is even greater than that of the judicial system.

The judicial system exists to help enforce government laws and maintain order. In this case, clearly the system failed. Metro Police say the case will not be reopened to seek out other suspects---the real criminals are free.

The media is charged with protecting the people from the government. This is one of the reasons why we have the first amendment! If the case appeared weak, as it did, why didn't your staff investigate further?

The media (along with the police, D.A, and accuser) has not only hurt Philip's reputation--it has also been complacent with the law-enforcement's apparent negligence to catch the real criminal! In this case, the media has failed as well.

I know you and your staff were probably just trying to do your job, but someone's life has been seriously effected. I also know that The Hoya's articles were not the most damaging. But if any media outlet was going to approach the story objectively I would have expected it to be The Hoya simply because the accused, just as the accuser, is a member of your community.

It is not enough to say "we just reported what the police/courts told us."

In response to the closing of the case, even the LGBT paper The Blade was able to present more information that pointed to the weakness of the case. This is ironic because that publication arguably has a motive to present Philip in a negative way!

Blade reporter Lou Chibarro Jr writes:

""In response to a question from the Blade, [U.S. Attorney's spokesperson] said he was making inquiries to determine if investigators with the police or his office attempted to seek out witnesses linking Cooney to the area where the assault occurred.

[Cooney's Lawyer] said he was prepared to present evidence showing that Cooney was not present in the immediate area where the assault took place.

“Philip was with friends at a small gathering at a fellow student’s house,” he said."-- (http://www.washingtonblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=17830)

In closing (i hadn't planned on writing a novel)--Good journalism goes deeper than just reading a selection of court transcripts and disseminating the information from above. I recognize that you did include some testimonials from those that know Philip personally--this alone does not denote objectivity on the part of the paper. Good journalists ask questions and investigate when the answers they get and the facts don't match up.

To report information without looking at it critically isn't just bad journalism, it's unethical. Maybe I'm being too hard on your paper. I wonder how many people on your staff looked at Philip with same level of criticism.

What I really do not understand, and find rather insidious, is the apparently assumption that because charged were dropped against Philip Cooney, the crime did not take place. I'm glad to hear that Mr. Cooney was not the perpetrator of this crime, but that does not mean the victim's account of the incident didn't happen. The crime was likely committed by someone else. He is still a victim and still should be allowed to remain anonymous.

Lastly, the idea that Scott Chesare and Olivia Chitayat no longer deserve recognition is absurd. They did not base their movement on the idea that Philip Cooney committed a hate crime. They base it on the idea that a hate crime was committed against a Georgetown student, potentially by another Georgetown student. The difference there is hugely important.

I wonder what kind of litmus test is applied to selecting the editorial board of the Hoya. Their hypocrisy in choosing which causes it will and will not take up is so transparent. Their most recent op-ed "We're Mad as Hell and We're Not Gonna' Take it Anymore," is the latest example. Of course the security breaches are outrageous and so easy to fix - it is vital to everyone's security that they improve these measures immediately. But the editorial board's "mad as hell" comment just emphasizes that they are capable of moral outrage, but only for politically correct causes. The editorial specifically states "Rarely do things occur at Georgetown that truly warrant outrage."

Really? Don't you think a false arrest and being taken out of one's dorm in handcuffs, based on one person's i.d. with no corroborating evidence, without even questioning the 19-year old in question who has no prior record, truly warrants outrage? I sure do, and a lot of others do, too. I bet if the Hoya were to do "man on the street" interviews on campus, they would find a lot of people who are extremely outraged at the treatment and press coverage of Philip Cooney, but the Hoya is choosing to remain silent on the subject, for reasons only they know. There are plenty of people who are extremely outraged that one person's account of what occurred that evening in September, was accepted hook, line and sinker by the powers that be, while the accused was not even given a chance to say where he was that night before being arrested. Never mind the outrageous and totally suspicious Facebook i.d. The "victim" never came forward with an alternative explanation as to how Cooney came to be identified, since the "hearsay in the classroom" story was widely contradicted.

The Hoya's editorial board should demonstrate moral outrage for a false arrest and the outrageous treatment of one of Georgetown's own - Philip Cooney - by the D.C. police, the U.S. Attorney's office, the University, and the vicious treatment he endured in the blogging community. I just find it outrageous that they don't have a problem with the total miscarriage of justice and they have nothing to say about an innocent Georgetown student's name being dragged through the mud on every major local t.v. station and newspaper. This is a Georgetown student - could be anyone - arrested in their dorm without even knowing why. Why aren't they asking why Cooney was arrested without being questioned in the first place, or why the U.S. Attorney dragged the case out for so long, or why some of the gay-interest blogs ridiculed him so viciously? Instead they issue a pathetic story, towing the U.S. Attorney's line, and doing no original reporting whatsoever. It seems like they are still afraid that saying anything defending Cooney is somehow an affront to the Gay and Lesbian community. Again - the Hoya, curiously silent.

I agree with Sheila and most of the comments comparing this to the Duke University scandal. A young man's reputation was ruined and he was placed in extreme financial and emotional jeopardy, not to mention the possible retaliation of persons assuming he was guilty. I strongly feel that authorities who arrested him and those who facilitated this travesty should be held accountable... with their jobs and finances...

Sheila,
Ditto.