Expanded from JEA.
Established 6 May 2026.
Last reviewed 6 May 2026.

When evaluating requests for corrections, retractions, and takedowns, the Editorial Board (the Chief Editor, Copy Editor, and any other editors) will utilize one of the below outcomes.

Outcome A: Leave everything as is

The Editorial Board will leave everything as is if:

  1. The request is designed to retain image, avoid embarrassment, or otherwise “save face” without a clear factual basis. Journalism and public relations are not the same discipline; the Monitor is beholden to the truth, not any one person’s image.
  2. There is no discernible evidence of a factual or legal issue.
  3. The request asks us to alter facts to match a preferred narrative.
  4. The request demands the takedown of an article that holds significant historical weight or that would irreparably damage the Monitor’s role as a Paper of Record if removed. In the event that an author requests anonymization of such an article, the Editorial Board may, but is not required to, remove the byline.

As a student publication, the Hilltop’s mission is in part to be an accurate record of events. Credibility of the student record, as written by students, is paramount.

Outcome B: Publish corrections, retractions, or updates.

The Editorial Board will publish corrections, retractions, Editorial notes, or updates if:

  1. The request identified information that was proven factually false or otherwise deficient at or since the time of publication.
  2. There is a need for transparency concerning the inaccuracy of a source.
  3. The Editorial Board needs to clarify the context or perspective of published information.
  4. The Editorial Board believes the situation is a gray area best solved by compromise.
  5. The Monitor can write a necessary follow-up story.

Outcome C: Take down information.

The Editorial Board will remove or redact published content if:

  1.  Imminent safety or vulnerability:
    • The article contains sensitive personally identifying information (SPII) including but not limited to a person’s address, phone, workplace, class schedule, location, or photo, of someone who has reported safety concerns, threats, or violence to us or the College.
    • The article reveals the identity or location of someone whose safety depends on remaining unidentified (e.g., domestic violence survivor, undocumented student, person in witness protection, LGBTQ+ student in an unsafe family situation).
    • The article was published without adequate consent from a minor or vulnerable person and contains information that could facilitate abuse, exploitation, or harassment.
    • NOTE: This justification does not apply to requests from the subject of reporting on alleged or proven wrongdoing. A person accused or convicted of a crime, violation, or harmful conduct cannot use this policy to suppress accurate reporting of that conduct, including claims of reputational harm or safety concerns resulting from the article.
      • EXCEPTION: If credible threats to harm a wrongdoer have emerged as a direct result of specifically identified SPII in the article under challenge, the Editorial Board may redact only that SPII while preserving the core reporting and the individual’s name.
  2. Factual collapse:
    • The article’s core factual base was based on a source who fabricated or misrepresented information in a way that invalidates the story’s central claims.
    • Significant key statements of fact are demonstrably false, to the point that the story no longer stands on its own or is no longer newsworthy.
  3. Legal obligation: A valid court order, restraining order, or other legal directive requires removal.
  4. Editorial standards: The Editorial Board determines the article violates the Monitor’s own standards so severely (e.g., deliberate fabrication, academic dishonesty/plagiarism, or other gross misconduct) that the damage to credibility from keeping the article up outweighs the damage from removal.
  5. Extraordinary circumstances: In the event of extraordinary circumstances not covered by the above, the Editorial Board and Faculty Advisor may, by unanimous agreement, take down or remove any article, for any reason.

Process

  1. All requests for corrections, retractions, or takedowns must be submitted in writing to the Chief Editor. The request must contain the requestor’s identity, the article that needs correcting, the proposed criterion met by the adjustment, and evidence to substantiate such a correction.
  2. The Editorial Board will review the request and determine which outcome applies within a reasonable timeframe (typically within one week). Decisions are made by majority vote, with the Chief Editor breaking any ties.
  3. If removal or redaction is necessary, the Monitor will note the removal, correction, or redaction. The Editorial Board will make clear what was removed, when it was removed, and why it was removed. This decision may be accompanied by an unsigned editorial.
  4. Decisions may be appealed in writing to the Faculty Advisor, whose determination is final.