In Tuesday’s edition of The George-Anne, we published a Letter to the Editor titled “Innocent until proven guilty is essential” that was signed by a large group of students. This letter stressed the importance of upholding the standard of innocence in people charged with crimes, especially in relation to Lance Durden’s recent charges.

Due to an error on The George-Anne’s part, these names were not verified prior to publication. To protect students, our policy requires that we ask for another form of verification than an email, since we don’t want someone whose email was left up in the library to see their name in The George-Anne unexpectedly the next day. Multiple students whose names appeared on the list told The George-Anne staff that they did not agree to sign this letter.

Because of these reports, we began contacting the students whose names were included on this Letter to the Editor. The intent was to correct our error, find the truth and verify identities.

Apparently we created a lot of buzz here.

Strangely, we have been met by confusion in most cases and anger in others. Students responded to our request with more than just verification, they wrote in defense.

The responses were all very similar. They read, “I knew what I was signing. I was in no way influenced to sign this letter.” One email said that another professor, Dr. Lorne Wolfe, “should not be to blame for ANY thing regarding this letter to the editor.” Note: We did not mention Dr. Wolfe at any time.

These responses were defensive and angry. The staff here is disheartened and confused by this reaction from students, as we always want students to see as us their advocates. We are always on the people’s side — we are, of course, students ourselves.

Our intent here was simply to verify signatures and do the job we missed — protecting students.

On the same note, we received feedback from students about the Our View in Tuesday’s paper as well.

This editorial was meant to encourage the university to implement a uniform policy about criminal charges or university conflicts involving professors.

In some cases, chairs have been removed from their positions with no public statement issued. In others, professors have been cast away to teach online-only courses. In still others, no action has been taken.

Our message — What’s the standard procedure? What exactly is the university responsible for during these investigations? How is the university catering to the students’ interests and concerns about the professors they see every day? No one knows.

Our coverage and the Our View are not meant to implicate people with the right to uphold a plea of innocence.

Our intent was to encourage the university by sending a clear message — it is the university’s responsibility to protect the students as well as serve our best interests.