Last week we ran an article reporting that the Grinnell Police Department had issued an arrest warrant for a Grinnell student and in so doing published the name of that student.

Since then, many of us have been asked and even challenged about our decision to print the name of the person in question.

The question is certainly relevant and important. This year's issues have included a number of articles on sensitive matters and incriminating information in the public domain that can damage a person's future in the professional and personal spheres.

As the primary source of news on campus, we are responsible for informing the community at large about issues affecting it and to do so as well as possible. Arbitrarily censoring the news always has the prospect of distorting the issue at hand.

Furthermore, the names in question are often already public knowledge.

Following the vandalism several weeks ago, the Grinnell Police Department issued a press release and the Grinnell Herald-Register published an article, both of which included the names of individual students. The situation was similar in earlier articles about student assaults and drug use.

This responsibility to publish information as fully and accurately as possible goes beyond abstract commitments and slogans.

On a campus so small that most everyone knows most everyone else, the rumor mill is liable to be faster and more damaging than at most schools.

The case of the vandalism in Haines was no exception, as many speculated--and continue to speculate--as to some of the incident's finer details; some of these rumors even dangerously implicated other individuals. The best way to quell such rumors is to print the truth.

That said, we recognize that in such a small and tightly knit community, what we print has the potential to either lionize or tarnish a person's reputation on campus. We have a responsibility to act respectfully toward fellow Grinnellians.

The S&B is not a gossip rag, and we do not print names when the personal cost of doing so is high and the informative value negligible.

In an article earlier this semester, the names of two students who were removed from campus for trespassing in a professor's office were kept anonymous.

When a person is affected by an event against their will and wish to remain anonymous, we respect that request. There are often times when we have information that is delicate which we do not print.

This balancing act is delicate and difficult. It's not always clear what is the "right thing to do." But every decision we make--particularly in sensitive issues--is made with much care and thought.

With the dining hall settling into its fourth semester of use, many of the bugs that plagued both dining hall employees and patrons have been hammered out. The sandwich line has a toaster, the milk machine is consistently restocked and the ice cream even has a few more flavor options.

But still, one main attraction that the new facility initially boasted has yet to be implemented--what has become of the promised outdoor dining?

As the weather is supposed to/has gotten warmer, the patio space outside the dining hall remains unused. The doors to the patio are apparently alarmed, which doesn't exactly bode well for the supposed future of outdoor dining.

Assuming that the doors will be opened, tables and chairs bought, all we're saying is--weather permitting and God (or Dick Williams?) willing--it'd be nice to enjoy that lake style ziti or chocolate ice cream cone outdoors.