To the Editor:

In printing the “Unabomber’s” manifesto, the New York Times and the Washington Post made the only correct decision. Presented with the chance, however doubtful, of saving human lives, I would hope any press would have made the same decision.

I understand the sacredness of the newspapers’ editorial control, but the relative importance of this should shrink to that of a mere game when compared with the value of human life.

If the bombings stop, many lives will have been saved at a small expense. And even if the bombings continue, it was worth a shot, and the printing of the text may help the authorities locate the party responsible for the attacks.

Opponents are quick to reply that there could be ill effects from the printing of the text, such as copycat bombers. However, one must remember that this 17-year chain of bombings is unique to our nation’s history. The chance that someone else could emulate the stealth of the Unabomber is far from likely.

Disregarding the manifesto’s journalistic validity, editors at the Times and Post made the correct decision in publishing the Unabomber’s document. To do this, they had to momentarily put aside their role as journalists, and act as humans.

Jason Kelly

Freshman

Computer Science and Journalism Mass Communication