Alumni condemn University’s conduct in case involving Daily reporter

A group of alumni condemned the University’s conduct toward The Daily and its reporter, Dilan Gohill ’27, in a Monday open letter to University administrators. Gohill was arrested in June while covering pro-Palestinian protesters’ occupation of the president’s office in Building 10.

The 12-page letter — addressed to University President Jon Levin ’94 and Provost Jenny Martinez, and additionally sent to former President Richard Saller and Board of Trustees Chair Jerry Yang ’90 M.S. ’90 — argues that Gohill’s actions on June 5 were lawful and criticizes the University’s June 10 statement, which supported Gohill’s criminal prosecution. 

“The polemical tone of the statement suggests that the University disregarded the available facts and the law sufficiently to justify its belief, instead jumping to a false legal conclusion to malign a freshman student as a demonstration of institutional callousness,” the alumni wrote.

The letter also alleges that a Stanford official — “reportedly” Martinez — directed law enforcement officers to arrest everyone in Building 10 upon arrival. Officers did so even with the knowledge of Gohill’s press credentials.

The Daily has reached out to the University for comment.

Gohill, alongside 12 protesters, was arrested on suspected felony charges of vandalism, burglary and conspiracy. The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office had not filed charges as of an arraignment in August but the case remains open.

The letter argues that Gohill did not commit any of the three felonies, citing, among other sources, Slack messages between Gohill and other Daily staffers from that morning.

The 11 signatories are high-profile Stanford alumni in journalism and law, including Friends of the Stanford Daily Foundation Board Chair Andrew P. Bridges ’76, former partner of Fenwick & West LLP; New York Times reporter Ryan Mac ’11; Online News Association founder Rich Jaroslovsky ’75; and Friends Vice Chair James D. Wascher ’75, a former federal administrative law judge.

These alumni are among many free press advocates — including a coalition of 26 free speech organizations — that have voiced public support for Gohill. On Wednesday, Bill Grueskin ’77, the dean of academic affairs of Columbia Journalism School and a former Wall Street Journal editor, also argued in an op-ed that Gohill should not be criminally prosecuted. 

“Six months on, it isn’t clear why the district attorney is still reviewing the case, and it’s even less clear why Stanford has taken such an aggressive posture toward a student journalist with less than a year’s experience,” Grueskin wrote.

Gohill, who is wrapping up the first quarter of his second year on campus, also calls on the University and the DA to not pursue further action against him.

“President Levin, Provost Martinez, and District Attorney Rosen are extremely close to setting a dangerous precedent where academic institutions can leverage their power and exploit student journalists’ academic status to silence their reporting,” Gohill said. “This is not about me or the events on June 5; this is about the freedom of student press — a fundamental pillar of our democracy.”

The University’s June 10 statement argues that the First Amendment does not protect a journalist’s right to “trespass in a locked private building.” But the Monday letter calls the statement’s discussion of the First Amendment “subject to debate” and argues that Gohill’s actions did not constitute trespassing, as he did not damage property or refuse a lawful order to leave.

Gohill has not been charged with trespass. “For good reason,” the letter states.

Alumni called upon the University to publicly withdraw its support of prosecuting Gohill and inform the DA’s office that it is not pursuing formal disciplinary action against Gohill. They also urged the University to issue a public apology to Gohill and The Daily, open a third-party investigation into University officials’ conduct in the case and request the DA’s office to close Gohill’s case.

Putting Gohill “under threat and leaving him in limbo amounted to unconscionable punishment-by-delay on the disciplinary front, and that form of punishment continues with respect to potential criminal prosecution,” they wrote.

The University previously expressed “serious concern” that Gohill acted at the direction of senior editors and suggested that The Daily provide its reporters and editors with stronger training.

In the letter, however, alumni lauded Daily reporters and editors for understanding their responsibilities and their rights as journalists, and concluded by condemning the University’s failure to fulfill its role as an educational institution.

“Nothing Stanford has done in this case suggests a mission to educate students, instead of controlling and punishing a student to thwart reporting,” they wrote.

The post Alumni condemn University’s conduct in case involving Daily reporter appeared first on The Stanford Daily.