Editorial Policy

The opinions expressed in The Colgate Maroon-News are those of the individual writers and do not necessarily represent the views of The Colgate Maroon-News or of Colgate University.

The Colgate Maroon-News accepts Commentary pieces regarding news coverage, editorial policy, University affairs and other topics pertinent to the students and campus community at Colgate University. The Editorial Board reserves the right to edit submissions to a reasonable length and to fit the standards outlined by Associated Press Style (AP Style). The newspaper cannot guarantee the publication of all submissions received and reserves the right to reject submissions based on style, punctuation, grammar and appropriateness. Defaming, denigrating or incriminating language regarding or directed at individual students and/or student groups will not be printed. Any statements made in Commentary pieces must be backed by factual information.

Solicitation on behalf of student groups will not be printed. Idiomatic profanity will not be printed. Offensive language may be printed as part of a report on the use of such language or related issues. Anonymous Letters to the Editor will not be printed. Letters from alumni should include the graduation year of the writer and all writers should provide a telephone number for verification. All submissions must be received by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. for Friday publication.

Organizations are encouraged to alert the staff of The Colgate Maroon-News, as publication of such events, alerts, and information is possible, if deemed so by Senior Staff. The newspaper reserves the right in entirety to edit the content of such announcements to fit space limitations, stylistic requirements, and to preserve the integrity of the newspaper from which the submitted content will be published. Should a party disagree to changes made by the Editorial Board, the newspaper reserves the right to decline publication.

Authorship Rights: Those who submit to The Colgate Maroon-News for publication understand that upon submission, they consent to any editing members of the Editorial Board deem necessary. Such editing will never alter the message or meaning of a submission, but editing for journalistic and stylistic printing standards is often needed. Authors will be made aware of any edits made to their submissions and a dialogue may be had on the changes if requested. They will be credited with authorship but The Colgate Maroon-News subsequently reserves the right to revise the content. Should a writer wish to publish their work written for The Colgate Maroon-News, they are able to by linking the publication to the newspaper’s website. Expressed permission must be granted by the Editor(s)-In-Chief for a writer to publish submitted work owned by The Colgate Maroon-News on an external news site.
Objective Reporting Statement: The Colgate Maroon-News does not censor ideas nor does it promote one narrative. The newspaper and its editorial board will not publish content that is aggressive in nature towards an individual, group or identity, a policy consistent with some of the nation’s most significant national publications. It is in the discretion of the Senior Staff if content is aggressive in nature.

AI Use Policy

Effective Oct. 26, 2025

Student journalists navigate a media landscape where AI tools are increasingly common. And while these tools can help us produce cleaner and more polished work, they will never replace the human judgment, reporting, and writing that form the heart of journalism. Our AI policy exists to help us use AI responsibly, and to inform our readers about the use of AI in our process to uphold journalistic integrity.

How We Use AI

AI can be a helpful assistant for the mechanical aspects of writing and editing. Our student writers and student editors may use AI tools to catch typos, fix grammar mistakes, verify punctuation, and check whether our articles are following AP style correctly. These are the same things we might look up in a style guide or ask a peer to proofread; AI just makes the process faster. Writers might also use AI to help brainstorm story ideas, identify research directions, or flag potential factual inconsistencies that need verification. What matters is that the actual reporting, writing, and thinking come from the journalist, not the machine.

How We Do Not Use AI

We do not use AI to write articles, generate quotes, conduct interviews, or create content that we then pass off as our own work. We do not ask AI to rewrite paragraphs, restructure our arguments, or change the substance of what we’re saying. This distinction especially matters during our collaborative editing process — an editor using AI to rephrase a writer’s sentences, reorganize their paragraphs, or alter their tone is doing something very significant, and the writer needs to know about it and consent to it. Our writers have distinctive voices that deserve protection.

Guidelines for Writers and Editors

If a writer uses AI for anything beyond basic grammar and style checking, they should tell their editor.
If an editor uses AI to do more than catch typos and style errors, they need to inform the writer.
We preserve version histories in our collaborative documents not as surveillance, but as documentation that protects both writers and editors by creating a clear record of the editorial process.
Everything we publish must meet traditional journalistic standards. This means that every fact gets verified, every quote comes from a real interview exchange, and every source is properly attributed. If you found information using an AI tool, you still need to verify it independently and cite the original source, not the AI.
A byline is a promise to our readers. It means the named writer did the reporting, conducted the interviews, and wrote the article. If AI assistance goes beyond fixing grammar and checking style and has been used to generate content or substantially restructure someone’s work, then we need to either disclose that or reconsider the byline. This protects both our credibility and our writers’ reputations.
If this policy is violated, we will handle it on a case-by-case basis, but writers always have the right to request removal of their byline if AI was used inappropriately in their work. Depending on the situation, we may need to issue corrections, review a staff member’s previous work, or in serious cases, reconsider someone’s role on the paper.
Our goal isn’t to punish people for honest mistakes or unclear guidance. This is new territory for all of us. If you’re unsure whether something is appropriate, ask.
If you realize you’ve crossed a line, be upfront about it. We would rather have an honest conversation than discover a problem later.
If you write for us, you have the right to know what tools were used in editing your work and to receive a detailed explanation of significant changes. You have the right to push back on edits you disagree with and to appeal decisions to the Editor-in-Chief. If you feel AI was used inappropriately in your article, you have the right to have your name removed from it.
Technology changes quickly, and our understanding of how to use it responsibly will evolve. We will review this policy at least once a year and update it as needed. In the meantime, if you have questions about whether something is appropriate, ask one of your Editors-in-Chief. Ultimately, we are all learning together.