After the Vote

In the great Harvard universe, it's what's for dinner that really counts. And over the past six weeks, The Crimson has run more stories about grapes than about any other topic.

The battle of politics and palates has been the subject of more than 30 articles, commentaries, editorials and letters. The path of the grape issue from a yellow comment card to a new menu item to a campus legend was at the very least facilitated, if not driven, by The Crimson's coverage.

By my account, the great grape debate began in The Crimson on Oct. 28, with a straightforward article announcing the impending return of grapes to the dining halls. Three days later, The Crimson published an article detailing student objection to ending the grape boycott.

So started an issue which galvanized more student involvement, activism and debate than any in recent memory. It is because students actually cared to follow this issue that it is possible to provide valuable insights into the role of The Crimson in promoting issues, providing information and representing the diversity of campus opinion.

Three questions immediately come to mind in analyzing The Crimson's coverage. First, was the coverage biased toward grape supporters or boycotters? Second, did The Crimson's coverage accurately reflect the diversity of student opinion on this issue? Finally, did The Crimson provide enough quality information to enable a thoughtful reader to make an informed decision about how to vote?

Though The Crimson staff did take an editorial position in favor of the grape boycott, it made efforts to ensure that news coverage was balanced. In my own analysis of the grape articles published between Oct. 28 and Dec. 5, I find that pro-grape and anti-grape viewpoints are given at least equal time.

According to Crimson executive editor Sewell Chan '98, "In the stories I edited, I looked to make sure that both sides of the issue were highlighted. Because we did profile Adam R. Kovacevich ['99]'s family quite prominently, it was important that we balance that piece with another front-page story about the conditions facing the majority of California grape workers, which we did do the next day."

The publication of letters and commentaries evidenced a great diversity of student opinion as well. Even the opinions of those who did not care at all about the grape issue were voiced. The Crimson, however, is a newspaper, not a megaphone. Simply providing a forum for the propaganda of all sides is not, in itself, responsible journalism.

The Crimson does not serve the same function as a poster in the Yard; it is the responsibility of any newspaper to provide authoritative, independent information. It was in this respect that I believe The Crimson's coverage fell short. In the debate, each side put forward competing statistics about pesticide use, working conditions and labor relations.

Crimson managing editor Andrew A. Green '98 acknowledged the difficulty of questionable data: "As with all stories, we did our best to make sure we checked as many angles as we could think of. In this issue in particular, many of the 'facts' are very much contested, so we made sure to cross-check them with all factions as much as we could."

Despite these efforts, however, many "facts" never made it into The Crimson's coverage at all. One of the most important facts, indeed, was wrong. For an entire month, until the day after the referendum, The Crimson misstated Stanford University's policy on grapes. Though Crimson coverage repeatedly claimed that Stanford did not serve grapes in dining halls, Stanford students in fact vote in each dining hall each year to decide whether grapes will be served. Harvard students needed to know what policies other colleges, especially those in California, have on serving grapes in dining halls. After a month of misinformation, an error box a day after the vote was too little and too late.

Readers have indicated to me that additional information was missing in The Crimson's coverage. One reader suggested that profiles of one grape grower and one ex-grape worker were insufficient to portray either their respective sides of the debate or the controversies surrounding worker conditions. The context of grapes as a national issue was conspicuously absent. Crimson readers have told me that they had not heard of the grape boycott before it became an issue at Harvard. A more thorough examination of the historical prominence and symbolism of the grape boycott would have put the issue in context.

A retrospective on Harvard's actions in the first United Farm Workers boycott of grapes, which generated much greater public sentiment and participation, would have been valuable. The timeline published on the day of the election was not thorough enough. Harvard students needed to know the character of debate in California, and whether other California colleges have taken a position on grapes.

The grape referendum has shown the tremendous impact and presence that The Crimson can have on campus, especially now that the paper is free to all undergraduates. The Crimson has shown its sensitivity to presenting a range of opinions and avoiding bias in its coverage. However, diversity alone does not ensure responsible journalism. The Crimson staff should be conscious that it is running a newspaper, not a public access channel. The shortcomings in Crimson coverage probably did not bias voting toward either side of the debate. The only losers were the voters, who lost the chance to get beyond the poster-like rhetoric and realize the significance of their actions in a greater context.

The Crimson should take this unique opportunity to learn both from how they succeeded and how they fell short. Though it's unlikely that another issue will galvanize as much interest on campus as grapes did, The Crimson faces these same issues in every news story. And who knows--maybe someday we'll get to vote on savory baked tofu.

Noelle Eckley '00, The Crimson's reader representative, is not a Crimson editor. She can be reached at eckley@fas.