It is, apparently, time for me to offer up another evaluation of the Justice.It had been my intention to comment on the paper's coverage of former President Jimmy Carter's recent visit to Brandeis-which I thought was excellent and far more even-handed, actually, than some of the attention that was given to the event by The Boston Globe. As an ombudsman, though, I am expected to be the "readers' representative," and that means that when the readers express their thoughts on the newspaper's coverage, it is my job to investigate and parse those opinions.

I gather more than a few students at Brandeis were quite upset by an editorial the Justice ran on Jan. 30 ("The F-Board's giant conflict of interest"). In that editorial, the newspaper pointed to Jordan Rothman '09 as an example of the "potential for bias" that exists under the current circumstances that determine how money is allocated to campus clubs by the Finance Board. F-Board members, it seems, are not required to recuse themselves from decisions that involve funding for clubs to which they belong. The Justice used Rothman to personify this conflict of interest because he is an F-Board member who happens to belong to 17 clubs, serving as an officer in nine of them.

It is important to note that Rothman was not used in this way because the Justice believes he has actually engaged in improper conduct. At no point in the editorial was any accusation of impropriety ever made, and indeed, the editorial makes it clear that the mere "perception among undergraduates" of bias is reason enough for a change in policy.

At the risk of alienating a few students whom I would very much like to see in my classroom some day, I do feel the need to use this moment to educate the readers who wrote to the Justice to complain about this editorial: Your friendship with Jordan Rothman has impaired your evaluation of what was actually said and how the newspaper said it.

There are no "insults" or "accusations" of "ineffective" performance in the editorial; no "petty name calling" or "personal attacks." At least two students who read the editorial felt the headline was a mean-spirited reference to Rothman's height-but although I have received confirmation that the word "giant" was, in fact, used with a full understanding of its personal implications, I nevertheless think I would be far more concerned if being taller than six feet were something men in American society were marginalized for.

A number of students agreed with the Justice's call for a recusal policy, but they did not think it was necessary or appropriate for the paper to take the step of personifying the potential for bias. I disagree. Putting a face on a potential problem is a common editorial technique used to stress the need for change and to make that need more accessible to people who aren't directly involved in the situation. A careful reading of The Boston Globe reveals that mainstream editorialists do this all the time-as when Kevin McKiernan recently pointed to Air Force General Joseph Ralston's appointment as a special envoy to the Middle East as an example of the "conflict of interest" that McKiernan believes is characteristic of the Bush administration's policies in the region. Ralston, as far as anyone knows, has done nothing inappropriate, but he is on the board of the world's largest arms manufacturer, giving-in McKiernan's words-"the ex-general the appearance of holding a financial interest in this shuttle diplomacy."

Now whether Rothman actually is the best example of the conflict of interest that concerns the editorial board at the Justice is, I think, a legitimate question. One reader suggested that because he is involved in so many clubs, Rothman's potential for bias has actually been mitigated. I think this reader has made a good point, and it is possible, therefore, that the Justice might have had a stronger argument had it used a different, or perhaps an additional student. This does not mean, though, that the Justice owes Rothman "an apology," or that the paper's editorial technique was unethical. I think, if anything, the readers who expressed their anger at the editorial should be more outraged by an article about Jordan Rothman that ran in the Jan. 16 edition of the paper ("Union official's performance questioned"). That article, I'm afraid, was gossipy, poorly researched, and without substance. Ironically, perhaps, it also consisted largely of quotes from Rothman.

The ombudsman serves as the readers' representative, writing a regular column evaluating the newspaper's journalistic performance. Prof. Maura Farrelly (AMST), the director of the journalism program and a former brodcast reporter for Voice of America, can be reached at farrelly@brandeis.edu.