No Wrongdoing Claimed by Light

I can bear it no longer. When the Crimson printed a stunningly inaccurate and misleading article about me recently, I was humiliated beyond words. When The Crimson was alerted to a number of factual errors in the article, the paper responded with indifference and a defensive letter from its attorney. That made me sad and weary--not the way I had hoped to feel leaving Harvard after nearly ten years of hard work and positive memories. Perhaps I should have known better, having seen students, professors, and administrators mercilessly crucified by The Crimson year after year. It is not that I suspect the staff deliberately sets out to attack people and organizations, but I regret that a sensational story seems to have become more important than thoughtful, balanced journalism.

In the best of situations, a news article will contain errors or lead the reader to make false assumptions. The Crimson article crossed well beyond the line of innocent misreporting. I will not attempt to address the many small inaccuracies in the article, but I do wish to point out the most glaring errors upon which the story was anchored.

Contrary to statements in The Crimson, I have not provided "false testimony" to the Cambridge Rent Control Board or any of its agents. In fact, I have never even been asked to make a statement before any such board--"under oath" or otherwise.

Second, I did not attempt to "trick" a board inspector into believing I lived in a house in Harvard Square. I would have had no motive whatsoever in doing so, and given the very public fact that I had resided for some years in Harvard Yard, I would have been foolish to suggest otherwise to any city official. The Crimson's statement that "the board found Light guilty of deceiving an inspector" is careless misrepresentation. It implies both that I have faced some form of tribunal and that a legal determination has been made. Neither is true.

Third, I most certainly did not, as the Crimson states, "act as Harrop's agent in purchasing the property." This is irresponsible reporting.

Fourth, had the Crimson taken greater care in its investigation, it might have noted that the Rent Control Board's hearing officer made his sweeping declarations about my moral integrity without ever giving me the slightest opportunity to speak on my own behalf. I lose both ways there--I am accused of lying to the board even though I had not been invited to any of several hearings, and because I was not present to defend myself, one of its officers freely castigated me in his individual interpretation of the case.

Fifth, the Crimson frames its article in such way as to suggest my move to California was in some way related to yet another hearing held in late December to which I was invited, sort of. To this day, I have not received notice of any such hearing. The rent board's general counsel has acknowledged that the letter was sent by regular mail to an address that has never been mine and where mail cannot be delivered. If missing a hearing can actually lead to criminal prosecution, why on earth would not such a notice be sent by registered mail or in the form of a summons? I would have been delighted to attend any hearing where I might have had, at last, an opportunity to counter the misconceptions and scurrilous charges that have swirled around this bizarre case.

Finally, it was terribly misleading of the reporter to talk of "repeated" unanswered phone messages, creating the impression that I was somehow avoiding a reply. Because I was in Cambridge fulfilling a commitment made to my admissions colleagues months ago, I did not get messages left for me over the weekend in California; and because I was at work late into the evening, I did not get a message at my Byerly Hall office until just hours before press time. Even then, the reporter did not state the reason for his call--I had no idea that I would be the subject of a painfully damaging front-page story. It strikes me as patently disingenuous to work on a story for several days, then attempt to get a comment from the central figure only the day before the article is to be printed.

Meanwhile, the history of the civil litigation from which this episode arose contains complicated details but a simple theme. As is so common these days, a person with a complaint--however unsubstantial--has elected to sue anyone and everyone with hopes that someone will pay.

As one of my mentors often said, "You can't unring a bell." He was right. This bell has been rung--with mortifying effect. Well, I wish to say for the record--and for what it may be worth--I have not lied to, defrauded, or mislead anyone, or otherwise committed the slightest breach of law or ethics with respect to this situation. Had The Crimson shown more courtesy, factual discipline, and professional restraint, the truth might have had a better chance to emerge. As it is, I will simply have to hope that when the entire story can be appropriately told, The Crimson will be as eager to print word of my restored good reputation as it was to report my alleged misdeeds. Keith W. Light   Stanford, California