At the bottom of the Letters to the Editor to the Chonicle this week lays this note.

Editor's note: Several letter writers have taken umbrage at the recent story setting forth one former student's criticism of Richard Lewis, former controversial dean of the College of Social Sciences. The University Chronicle editorial board has decided to investigate the claims of editorializing and biased reporting, which it takes seriously. The matter is being referred to University Chronicle Readers' Advocate Joe Palmersheim for analysis under the guidance of adviser Michael Vadnie. An ombudsman analysis, incorporating the facts and the criticism surrounding the story, will appear in University Chronicle prior to Thanksgiving break.
- Editor Eric O'Link

Not that Palmersheim or Vadnie will care what I have to say, but the article that we reported on Tuesday was clearly not ready for publication. Just because you can't get people to comment because of the delicacy of the situation around Lewis' firing is not reason to present a one-sided case. It should have been a flag that there was much more going on here, and the story was still immature for publication.

Oh, and Eric? He's a controversial former dean (in your opinion). He's in no way "formerly controversial". Editors should edit.