Suzanne and Randy

With the specter of prison hovering over their heads, I wonder how well Suzanne M. Pomey ’02 and Randy J. Gomes ’02 sleep at night. I occasionally have trouble sleeping the night before a big test and that is a trifle of a trial compared to what awaits these alleged partners in crime. In a way, however, their impending prosecution might seem like a small relief after the persecution they have received on campus in these tabloidal weeks since their story broke. At least you can count on a judge and jury to be fair; the same, as it turns out, cannot always be said of your peers.

Two issues ago, Fifteen Minutes ran a lengthy scrutiny that attempted to put the purported crimes of Pomey and Gomes in a life-historical context. In thoroughly disconcerting fashion, the article laid bare past indiscretions, using interviews with old teachers, hometown community members and “friends” of Pomey and Gomes to make clear the point that such alleged ethical lapses as the Pudding pilfer are hardly surprising coming from either of the accused. But in the effort to contextualize the accusations (which, by the way, it did very well), the article accomplished several other less desirable purposes that cause one to question whether it ever should have been written in the first place.

The FM scrutiny is not the only piece of aggressive journalism to appear since the scandal surfaced. Indeed, a few of my fellow columnists have, in these very pages, condemned the pair for everything from social climbing to stupidity, before opining, with great conviction, that they get what they deserve. This chorus of criticism has been door-dropped daily in front of Suzanne’s and Randy’s rooms (they’re both still on campus) and when they wake up in the morning they have the unfortunate privilege of knowing what the rest of us can only speculate about: exactly what their peers think of them.

Imtiyaz H. Delawala ’03, president of The Crimson, in an interview about the FM article, told me that as journalists, “It’s not our primary role to consider how this is going to affect these two people. Our role is to provide information about a story that is going on.” In a follow-up e-mail, Delawala elaborated, writing, “It’s not necessarily our journalistic obligation to write a story like the one we wrote in FM, but I do think we have the right to because this is a relevant issue on campus.”

Delawala’s invocation of “right” in defense of the scandal coverage is indicative of all that is unseemly about the way the Harvard community has rallied against Pomey and Gomes; rights are often what we use to justify not caring about other people, be it as businessmen, journalists or private citizens. At times they are the assertion of personal entitlement over humane consideration and in this situation I think that our right to skewer and expose Pomey and Gomes is better left shelved.

I’m certainly not defending what Suzanne and Randy allegedly did, for, if true, their actions are indefensible. They’ll have their day in court and if it results in a jail sentence, I won’t feel especially bad for them. That’s the price you pay for an ill-gotten hundred grand. I’m merely saying that I don’t feel a personal need or even a public obligation to make myself a part of their punishment.

Because that’s what the explosion of commentary surrounding Pomey and Gomes amounts to: a particularly cruel form of punishment. Information cannot be disseminated neutrally and opinion cannot be offered academically. The words we write have a very real effect on the people we write them about and it is in this light that we must carefully consider what we publish. If we need to chronicle the history of Pomey’s ethical difficulties and Gomes’ personal problems in order to understand the crime they may have committed, frankly I think it’s better that we don’t. I just don’t think it’s that important that I know why they did it.

The world we live in may sanction and even encourage the type of treatment that Pomey and Gomes have received from the Harvard press, but in the end that alone does not justify it. While the rules of the game might entitle The New York Times to objectify Pomey and Gomes in the name of good journalism, it does not mean that we need to embrace similar standards within our community. As college students we possess the unique combination of professional-level skills without real world pressure to use them. We are insulated from the demands of profit and job performance that so often make the assertion of rights a necessary cover for actions which we degrade other people. Rather than dehumanize Pomey and Gomes, why not instead take advantage of this opportunity to be a little more compassionate than the world says we need to be?

Kevin Hartnett ’03 is a social studies concentrator in Cabot House. His column appears on alternate Mondays.