Editorial The right report, but the wrong reasons?

Author: [no author name found]

The mystery of Nick Garza's '11 tragic disappearance and death came to a close on March 12 as the Middlebury Police Department (MPD) finally released the official report on its investigation. The report brings closure to a saga that last year saw search and rescue teams combing every inch of the grounds, flying overhead in helicopters and even enlisting students to help find the missing student. Available online to the public as a free download, the document successfully addresses many of the questions that have plagued us for the last 13 months, but it does so at too high a cost to the privacy and sensitivity owed his family and friends.

Last year, as the months stretched on and spring thaw brought no resolution to the Garza case, MPD came under occasional fire from parents and students when the investigation consistently failed to produce conclusive results. Though we believe the criticism is somewhat misplaced - as officials were legitimately paralyzed by the winter snowpack and other similar challenges - we cannot condone the public airing of the case's most sensational findings.

The report in question levels charges at an array of actors ostensibly to provide truth and background. One portion of the document describes how a Commons Residential Advisor, in the hours immediately following Garza's disappearance, colluded with a student to conceal a bottle of liquor from the Office of Public Safety; another highlights a prior confrontation Garza had with MPD. While these facts may shed some light on the case, the tone of the report and its public release suggest a deliberate attempt at self-exoneration. Chief of Police Tom Hanley's disparaging comments to the press about Nick's mother, and his department's failure to notify students it had interviewed that the report - which identifies them by name - would be shared in its entirety, represent nothing if not an invasion of privacy. Police files are public record, but giving a brief announcement of the report and summarizing its most important findings would have done the same job while preserving the dignity of those who contributed to the investigation.

In the past, we have criticized the College's lack of transparency regarding Nick's disappearance; now, for better or worse, we have all the answers. Nick was intoxicated - severely so - on the night that he died, a fact that Old Chapel never has acknowledged in any official capacity and should be prepared to explain in its own announcement of the police report. Acting Provost Tim Spears recently took a positive step by confirming this information on his personal blog. If we are to pursue an open dialogue as Spears recommends about the danger of alcohol abuse at the College, such an endeavor can only begin with honesty at the institutional level.

That the College bears responsibility for fostering such frank discussions, however, does not absolve us of our responsibility to one another. Despite the best efforts of the Alcohol Task Force and the Office of Health and Wellness Education, students looking to blow off steam will continue to binge drink at Middlebury no matter what the College does to limit the problem. The single most important commitment we students can make to campus security is, therefore, to assume personal responsibility for our collective health and well-being. In an environment as small as Middlebury's, that is our burden as well as our blessing.