News

Not That There's Anything Wrong With It

September 11, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

The mythical tradition of the alumni magazine prank was elevated (or lowered?) to the level of litigation last month, when Ross Weil and Brett Royce sued American University for printing a "Class Notes" blurb announcing their wedding in Boston.

The trouble, according to the lawsuit, which was filed on August 30 in federal court in New York City, is that the item published in American Magazine this spring wasn't true. Weil and Royce are not married, and Weil is not the "chief operating officer of the Gay Rights Brigade, which lobbies for constitutional amendments providing for homosexual privacy and marriage rights."

The suit seeks a combined $1.5 million for the two plaintiffs, who graduated in 2002. It accuses the magazine of libel, acting "in malice, reckless and gross negligence" -- and says it falsely "imputes homosexual behavior" between the men.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Michael Kaufman, declined to comment, but he told the New York Post on Sunday that no one at the magazine or the Washington-based university had contacted his clients to confirm the notice. "It has nothing to do with homophobia," he said of their lawsuit.

A spokeswoman for the university, Maralee Csellar, couldn't comment on the details of the case but said "we depend on the accuracy of our alums" when publishing the "Class Notes" section, which is not posted online. The magazine is published three times a year and is produced by the University Publications division, under the president's office, with a stated circulation of about 85,000.

Earlier this year, the Yale Alumni Magazine ran then retracted a false announcement of a graduate's "coming out party," which it discovered when the originator wrote in to apologize for the "silly and foolish prank." To trick magazine editors who e-mailed to confirm the submission, he had created a fake account pretending to be the person in question.

Given the reliance of magazine editors on reader submissions to fill alumni news pages, inaccuracies and exaggerations perpetuated by alumni are not rare.

— Andy Guess

Go to comments (9) »

Get Hired!

See all postings »

Matching Jobs

Most Popular

Comments on Not That There's Anything Wrong With It

What I want to know is...
Posted by SB on September 11, 2007 at 9:05am EDT
... how Weil became COO of the Gay Rights Brigade right out of school. Heck, I'm still toiling away in the mailroom.

Oh, the horror
Posted by T-bone on September 11, 2007 at 9:35am EDT
I have to say first that I really appreciate the Seinfeld reference in the title of this article...I've wasted many an hour enjoying that show.
It's too bad that the recipients of this "prank" are so afraid of others thinking they might be gay - I had some [misplaced, apparently] hope that we had progressed beyond the place where being called 'gay' is a slur.

OH THE REAL HORROR
Posted by Marco on September 11, 2007 at 10:20am EDT
T-Bone,
I think this is one of those cases where it actually ISN'T about the homophobia of those who filed suit, but the homophobia and stupidity of those who made the announcement and thought it would be "all in good fun." That is the kind of homophobia that needs to be attacked and called out, the kind that thinks being called gay is actually a joke.

Posted by Larry on September 11, 2007 at 10:25am EDT
I hope this doesn't interfere with my plans to have my alumni magazine list me as "King of Norway."

Cases in Point
Posted by Edward Hershey , principal at Edward Hershey & Associates on September 11, 2007 at 11:25am EDT
The American and Yale miscues are two examples of why it is imperative for college magazines to go through the painstaking process of checking every class note instead of ceding responsibility to a network of class correspondents.

striking fear
Posted by Jennifer , alumni mag editor on September 11, 2007 at 12:05pm EDT
right through my heart.
We DEPEND on submissions being true. If you want your classmates to believe you joined the Moscow circus, we will print that. But the idea of someone sending in a false note on one of their peers is horrifying.
My worst gaffe was printing the "still looking for a husband" note that came through another staffer--who had editorialzed a little much. Now we have forms for this kind of thing.

Posted by Monica , Checking should NOT be required on September 11, 2007 at 12:05pm EDT
I completely disagree with Edward's answer is to impose additional work and expense on the magazine staffs who enjoy few resources. Puhleeze! Such a burden would eliminate class notes altogether, and as the most read part of any alumni magazine, I doubt that would serve any institution well.
The reported incidents are not the first, nor I would argue the most egregious, mistakes to get published. They are other accounts of premature death notices of alumni. The proper response is for the magazine to ban the perpetrator from any further submissions (and maybe threaten them with degree revocation). And for the "offended" parties to (1) frame the magazine for life-long amusement of friends and family, and (2) write a reply the magazine will certainly publish for all alumni to see.

No Excuse
Posted by Edward Hershey , principal at Edward Hershey & Associates on September 11, 2007 at 12:30pm EDT
For my money, the key phrase in Monica's rebuttal is that fact-checking would "impose additional work and expense on the magazine staffs who enjoy few resources."
Who is kidding whom? Even the most journalistic college magazines exist primarily to support development, and in no area is that truer than the class notes section. Colleges that spend extensively on other aspects of fundraising but skimp on editorial staffing would be well advised and better served to provide their magazines with appropriate resources.

Not About Homophobia? Give me a break...
Posted by Not Married , Professor on September 11, 2007 at 12:55pm EDT
Of course this lawsuit is about homophobia! Would these plaintiffs or anyone be as inclined to bring suit if the alumni publication has said one had married Nicole Kidman and the other Julia Roberts? To say that this lawsuit isn't about homophobia is completely disingenuious. In fact, it's a baldface lie.
And let's look at the issue of homophobia in a larger context. In approximately 35 states, you can still be fired because your employer knows or even thinks you're gay. Some companies and some universities have non-discrimination policies but that's a hit or miss proposition, and besides, company or university policy never offers the protections that legislation can.
In those states with no legal protection based on sexual orientation for employment (or for housing or for loans from a bank or for membership in a public athletic facility or...the list is endless), a person fired because his boss or supervisor thinks he's gay has no legal recourse. No recourse, folks -- perfectly legal. I know about these things because I'm gay, I live in one of these states, and that's why you don't see my name on this posting.
So the attorney for the plaintiffs may simply be protecting his clients' rights to the most basic of necessities (like employment), but that still doesn't mean this suit isn't about homophobia. It clearly is because homophobia is rampant in the U.S.

Search News