Seattle Times Changes Headline, Harvard Students and Professors Push Back

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 01:04


Well, the emails are working.  The Seattle Times changed the headline from:

Darcy Burner's claims of a Harvard degree in economics aren't true

To:

Darcy Burner's Harvard econ degree an exaggeration

The Seattle Times also updated the story twice. Many of you have contacted the editor or Emily Heffter at eheffter@seattletimes.com and the emails I've seen have been polite and well-reasoned.  Meanwhile, former Harvard faculty and students are posting about how stupid the article is.

Matt Stoller :: Seattle Times Changes Headline, Harvard Students and Professors Push Back
Here's MarkARKleiman:

Whoever wrote this story doesn't understand the Harvard system. I used to teach there. It's perfectly reasonable to say that Burner has a Harvard degree in computer science and economics.

Here's mediamaverick:

Hmmm....I teach journalism at the graduate level and actually earned a degree from Harvard. Your reporter should have been more careful with the facts. You may want to check out your own bio for Darcy Burner which cleary states here degree status (from Harvard). Earning what is essentially a joint degree is more difficult that a regular major.....You owe her a big apology for your misleading headline and half-baked reporting effort.

countrymouse

I was a freshman at Harvard when Ms. Bruner was a senior (never knew her). As other commenters have noted, if you wanted to double-major, you had to choose one 'home' department, and then you made arrangements to take upper-level classes in another department. CS and Ec would have had overlapping pre-requisites (Math, etc), so taking 5 upper-level Ec classes sounds about right for what she is claiming ("a degree in computer science and economics").

Did the reporter even give Burner the simple courtesy of a chance to answer the charge that she was lying before going to press? If not, maybe she needs to go back to journalism school. May I suggest a minor in journalistic ethics

Here's JK465:

As someone who has been on faculty at Harvard, I can attest that this is simply twisting words for political opportunism. Harvard doesn't have "majors". They only have concentrations. And they don't have "minors" -- so to gain other credentialed experience, someone gathers coursework in joint, or dual concentrations. However only one department can appear on any transcript. Period. Even if you had major coursework across three departments (say your joint major area was "Molecular Biochemistry", you would Biology, Chemistry and Molecular Biology courses) but you would have to designate ONLY one of those as the primary department and thus folks might think you had only biology OR chemistry OR molecular biology work.

Ms. Burner's description is accurate if you understand the Harvard system (which also until recently had a 14 pt GPA scale -- I don't hear folks calling Ms. Burner a 'liar' about any 12.76 GPA average that she likely had). You just need to understand the Harvard system and its terminology which is quite different from most University systems.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Seems like a more appropriate headline would be... (4.00 / 2)
"Darcy Burner worked harder for joint Computer Science and Econ degree"

The headline still makes her sound bad when her degree is actually more impressive.


Computer Science degree requirements at Harvard (4.00 / 7)
I'm the professor and ex-dean who was quoted in the story, and as it happens, also the guy who wrote the CS degree requirements. At the time Darcy was at Harvard, she would have needed, as part of her CS degree requirements, several courses in a technical specialization area related to CS. She fulfilled that CS degree requirement by specializing in Economics (which meant, by the way, that she couldn't have taken just the easy, non-mathematical Ec courses). So it's not exactly a minor (which we didn't have then, though we do now), and it's also not anything that the registrar would be able to certify (because it's an internal requirement of the computer science faculty). But it's something everyone getting a degree in CS had to do (though other students would have other specialties). The way Darcy is describing herself is accurate.

[ Parent ]
Did your interview with Ms. Heffter (0.00 / 0)
Lead you to believe that you were going to be party to a misleading article?

[ Parent ]
My interview with Ms Heffter (4.00 / 1)
I was surprised and puzzled by the tone. It seemed a simple matter for me to verify that Darcy had an Ec specialization within her CS concentration, and as I noted above, the Registrar would not have been in a position to do that so I was glad to do it. I didn't expect that it would be the reporter's intention to try to discredit the significance of that fact, but that is how I interpreted her odd question about what that Economics specialization would qualify Darcy to do. For some reason the reporter's questions struck me as hostile, so I simply repeated myself and ended the conversation rather quickly after that. But I did explain what a specialization consisted of in terms of coursework.

And hello to you, Neil the ethical werewolf herebelow :)


[ Parent ]
Whoa, it's Harry Lewis! (0.00 / 0)
I'm Class of 2001, and it's always exciting to see faculty/administrators from my undergrad days show up in comments sections.  

Donkeylicious

[ Parent ]
why doesn't the school itself weigh in? (0.00 / 0)
seems like a simple misunderstanding that the school's registrar could clear up.  anyone been in touch with them?  

Is it just me? (4.00 / 3)
Deep thought: Making accusations about a system you don't understand doesn't make much sense. When it is about Harvard, isn't there a fairly good chance that some really smart people are going to make you look really stoopid?

There should almost be a term. Emily Heffter Award? Would that work if anyone were dumb enough to do this in the future.


She understands the system quite well (4.00 / 3)
Emily wasn't guilty of ignorance here.

[ Parent ]
Folks, we are EXTREMELY lucky on this one (4.00 / 1)
The Seattle Times web site rolled out an upgrade that now supports comments on all of their articles LITERALLY TODAY.

We need to take advantage of this to set the record straight. Yes, you have to create an account, but isn't it worth creating an account there to clear the record and hopefully get another good Democrat into Congress?


At what point does something like this (4.00 / 1)
...qualify as libel? I know US law is weird about libel, but this is pretty darn disgusting. And I have the distinct feeling that this headline was meant to imply that Darcy didn't even go to Harvard at all, at least to the casual reader who merely glances over headlines.  

My question exactly... (4.00 / 1)
...cuz even calling Burner's degree an "exaggeration" is kinda wrong, no?  

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

[ Parent ]
be glad (0.00 / 0)
That libel is near-impossible to sue on in the American legal system! (Requiring not only untruth, but also malicious intent or "reckless disregard" -- and there being an even higher standard demanded in the case of a politician.)

Sufficiently difficult, in other words, that no blogger or newspaper really need worry about a call from the lawyers on that score. At least, after the advertisers, corporate sponsors, beltway cocktail party inviters and generic conventional wisdom slingers are done, it's nice to catch a break.


[ Parent ]
not even close to libel (0.00 / 0)
Because Burner is a public figure/official, rather than a private person, her burden of proof in a libel case would be actual malice.  To make this case, Burner would have to prove that either the reporter/publisher knew her story was false when it was published, or that the reporter/publisher displayed "reckless disregard for the truth".  A mere mistake, misreporting, or error does not qualify as reckless disregard.  

[ Parent ]
if it helps (4.00 / 4)
what i mainly learned from this is that darcy burner went to harvard.

:)


Headline change isn't much (4.00 / 2)
This story's going to hit the local TV news tomorrow and the message will be "Darcy Burner exaggerated her resume - she denies the claim." Even that is quite damaging in a close race.

Emily Heffter - who knows better and made a willful choice to write a Fox News-style smear piece - and the Blethen family that has turned their newspaper into a vehicle to elect Republicans, need to remain targets until we get a full retraction.


Darcy Burner (4.00 / 1)
Sent an email earlier today to Emily Heffter and got a response back tonite. In my email I asked her had they checked out Reichert's educational background. In her response she said that he had gone to a two year MN school on a football scholarship. When I wrote back tonite, I indicated that I did not think Burner had misled anyone in regards to her resume and encouraged the reporter to talk again with Harvard re. this whole issue. I also asked why the Seattle Times was so concerned with the educational portion of Burner's resume....it seems their scrutiny/vetting of Burner is a little overdone. Instead, I think they should be focused on the qualitative differences in the educational backgrounds of the two candidates. I mean..its very likely Reichert has an AA degree in Police Science. That's fine if you want to be a cop but is it a satisfactory level of education for a congressman? I know that smacks of elitism but haven't we had enough of mediocrity in this country.  

social work (4.00 / 1)
Reichert's two year degree is in social work.  

Similar smear headline work could more accurately be applied to Reichert's career coup: poor police work extended Green River killing spree by a decade.  And that's clearly true.


[ Parent ]
In the end, a degree doesn't say all that much about what you know (4.00 / 1)
The older I get, the more I realize this.  Let me hear how they speak to the issues and where they stand on things, and so on and so on.

Resumés are important inasmuch as it might give an insight into how people will act.  For example, Rumsfeld's behavior in the Nixon administration was a clear indicator that he was very fond of cloak and dagger-style byzantine maneuvering.  His behavior as secDef shouldn't have been a surprise.

But s far as determining qualifications for elective office, I'd rather just hear them speak, and know where they stand.  Of course, this is where Ms. Burner shines, anyway.  And there's no need to invoke the Harvard degree and sneer at her opponent's inferior academic pedigree.

That is, if that could get through to the press.


[ Parent ]
Now that they've 'fessed up to one mistake (sort of)... (4.00 / 1)
...how 'bout we get them to cover, in detail, the $735K in free air time for Reichert?  And the possible free air time for Dino Rossi as well?


this isn't even english (0.00 / 0)
"Darcy Burner's Harvard econ degree an exaggeration"

makes me think they were either trying to save space or were trying really hard to make sure they didn't admit they were wrong.


precisely (0.00 / 0)
I am not sure a degree can itself be an exaggeration (unless it was, perhaps, "BA in absolute awesomeness that is totally untouchable and can fly." Dude, your degree is an exaggeration.)

[ Parent ]
here is the text (0.00 / 0)
of my email to Heffter:

Ms Heffter,

I am a supporter and friend of Darcy Burner, and was rather upset by your recent article about her Harvard Degree.  Most angering is the headline "Darcy Burner's claims of a Harvard degree in economics aren't true."  I understand that this headline may have been written by an editor, as opposed to you, but I'm sure you're well aware that this headline implies to the average reader that Burner is falsely claiming a degree from Harvard.  This, in my opinion, is false and irresponsible journalism, especially given the fact that Darcy did indeed obtain a degree from Harvard in Computer Science with a specialization in Economics--as she told me when I first met her in 2006, and which I have heard her say at other campaign stops both last cycle and this cycle.

If claiming a degree in economics while having having "only" a degree in Computer Science with an Economics concentration from one of the most distinguished universities in America is worthy of a story in your paper, perhaps the article should have mentioned that the claim is an exaggeration or something similar, rather than implying--as your headline and the beginning of your article indeed does--that her entire claim to a Harvard degree is false.

As it stands right now, this article reads like a hit job against Darcy that tries to make a mountain out of a molehill.  And it seems to me that you and your editor owe both Darcy and the voters of the 8th District an apology for a misleading article and a misleading headline.

Sincerely,

Dante Apollo Atkins



Fantastic job OpenLeft and everyone! (4.00 / 1)
This is quite inspiring, I must say. Sometimes I feel we're powerless to fight the corporate media. This is great news to wake up to.

Look, (0.00 / 0)
Can't she just say:  "Who do you go to when complex economic problems need to be solved, somebody who studied computer science and economics at Harvard ... or your county sheriff?"

Here's mine... (0.00 / 0)
I sent this to Emily last night:

Ms. Heffter:

I am writing in regard to your article published yesterday in the Seattle Times.  

Following an atrocious headline, your "reporting" was petty, misleading, "gotcha" style drivel worthy of Fox News.  If your intent was to explore the comparative academic qualifications of the candidates vying to handle economic questions facing the Republic, you failed.  If your intent was to uncover malicious dishonesty on the part of one candidate, as I think the tone and "substance" of the article implied, you again failed, though not for lack of trying.  Unmistakable was the implication that Darcy Burner misled the public, repeatedly and deliberately, regarding her academic achievements in economics.

This could not be further from the truth.  Darcy Burner neither lied about nor misrepresented her academic credentials.  The egregious violation of the truth in these circumstances is wholly resident in your "reporting".  You approached an issue with some complexity and subtlety, that is, the nature of academic credentials and the jurisdictions which grant them, and you obscured rather than clarified; worse, your dishonesty was in the service of one political partisan over another.  You abandoned your responsibility to the public.

Had you wanted to engage in a comparison of the academic qualifications of the two candidates, you surely would have been able to present side by side a Harvard Bachelor's degree with an Associates degree from a community college.  You could have explored the original interdisciplinary thesis work done by Ms. Burner, in fields directly relevant to our local high-tech economy, with the courses taken by Mr. Reichert.  Alas, you chose not to illuminate, but rather to perpetrate a clumsy hatchet job on candidate Burner, implying nefarious intent on her part as some sort of present-day Frank Abagnale, Jr.

Your journalistic malpractice is only compounded by the fact that there is a potentially explosive issue in this race, ignored thus far by you and the rest of the local media.  I refer to the "loan" be advanced to the Reichert campaign by its media buyer, Media Plus+, in an amount exceeding $500,000.  This is on its face illegal, the Burner campaign has filed and FEC complaint, and yet there is no reporting on this in either of Seattle's corporate newspapers.  I am most disappointed in you and your paper's deafening silence on this issue.

I look forward to the courtesy of a reply,

Most sincerely,

M______ T____




Matt Yglesias (0.00 / 0)
Posted this:

My thoughts on this absurd Seattle Times hit on Darcy Burner:

Harvard, as you know, is old and fancy. Consequently, it has a lot of old and fancy terminology and procedures that differ somewhat from the American norm. They don't, for example, have "teaching assistants" (TAs) instead they have "teaching fellows" (TFs). You don't live in a "dorm" you live in a "house." Instead of "RAs" there are "proctors" and "tutors." And instead of "majors" there are "concentrations." If I want to communicate some fact about my college experience in a normal way, however, I'll say that "when I was in college I majored in philosophy, Walid Hussein TAed two of my classes, and my dorm was near Noch's." By the same token, there are no minors at Harvard. What Burner did is the Harvard equivalent of doing a joint degree in computer science and economics, though it's not technically called that and the process (which would involve taking an adequate number of economics courses and then writing a thesis that bridges both subjects) is probably somewhat different from what you might find elsewhere. That she chose not to give a tediously detailed description of the academic procedures of her undergraduate institution is just common sense.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress....


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search