Editor's note: This op-ed references a now-deleted Jan. 7 news article, which reported on the circumstances surrounding the death of Lia Smith ’26. The paper’s executive team decided to make a one-time exception to its strict editorial policy and remove the article after a long discussion and vote by Campus staff. The Campus remains proud of its 120-year history of student-run reporting and of serving as a forum for free and fair speech.
As a close friend of Lia Smith ’26, I was experiencing another wave of grief two weeks ago when I had a comforting realization: I did not know how Lia had died, and while I knew the information was available, it hadn’t been in the news, so as to distract from her life or blame her, as often happens. As such, I was deeply hurt by The Campus’s now-deleted choice to publish the details of Lia’s death on Jan. 7, particularly the insensitive manner in which it was written.
The graphic detail was unnecessary and a violation of the second point of The Trevor Project’s (an LGBTQ+ advocacy group) guidelines for reporting on suicide, The Campus purported to follow. The presumptions made based on the circumstances of her death, followed immediately by a statement of the college's handbook policy, read as an indictment of Lia. Its primacy rules out any possibility that the article could have had a primary goal of discussing LGBTQ+ suicide rates or gun control, as The Campus later claimed. Overall, the article had the effect of highlighting what Lia had “done wrong” in dying while villainizing her as a potential danger (something we know she was not).
This was a case of unintentional callous reporting from overzealous young journalists. Eager to break a story, they misstepped regarding the norms of ethical journalism as laid out in the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, specifically the provision to minimize harm. This provision states that journalists should: Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort, show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage, recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast, weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information, avoid pandering to lurid curiosity and consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication.
The Campus failed on each of these. There was no public need for the information, and there was high discomfort and harm, as expressed by some of Lia’s friends who reached out to have the article taken down. Compassion was not shown for those in mourning; the consequences of demonizing Lia, and trans people by extension, were not considered. The article pandered to lurid curiosity, and the long-term impacts on the narrative of Lia’s death were not weighed. Portraying trans people as dangerous plays into the politicized narrative of trans shooters that justifies discrimination and harm against them. The impact of the article, given how it was written, was to villainize and blame Lia and, by extension, trans people, make other trans students feel unsafe on campus and re-traumatize a community still grieving.
Irrespective of these mistakes, The Campus has taken the first step towards making things right by taking down the articles and reconsidering their policies. Their acknowledgement of the unintended effects and the steps to correct them are the first steps toward accountability and transparency, the fourth provision of the SPJ Code of Ethics. The new breaking news policy is a good first step, but further reflection is warranted to grow from this moment. Going forward, all journalists need to be trained on ethical reporting to avoid causing harm as The Campus did in this instance.
