The PAW online letter from Yeates Conwell ’76 about reporting the suicide of Misrach Ewunetie ’24 strikes me as unjustified, from its appeal to a self-appointed authority (a website that proclaims it reviewed “over 100 peer-reviewed studies” without citing even one — a presentation of evidence that even Wikipedia would reject) to its peremptory use of “must” in the closing sentence.
I didn’t take any philosophy courses that specifically focused on epistemology, but it should be clear that PAW reported what was known when it was known. It is unfair to reprimand PAW for indicating “place” of death when that would be highly relevant if foul play had been involved. And posting a “photo” along with “details” (e.g., names of family members) is a standard procedure in the media for informing the community, who are expected to react with sympathy rather than a litany of rules about reporting.
The PAW online letter from Yeates Conwell ’76 about reporting the suicide of Misrach Ewunetie ’24 strikes me as unjustified, from its appeal to a self-appointed authority (a website that proclaims it reviewed “over 100 peer-reviewed studies” without citing even one — a presentation of evidence that even Wikipedia would reject) to its peremptory use of “must” in the closing sentence.
I didn’t take any philosophy courses that specifically focused on epistemology, but it should be clear that PAW reported what was known when it was known. It is unfair to reprimand PAW for indicating “place” of death when that would be highly relevant if foul play had been involved. And posting a “photo” along with “details” (e.g., names of family members) is a standard procedure in the media for informing the community, who are expected to react with sympathy rather than a litany of rules about reporting.