Editors note: In this piece, youll notice the interview with Dr. Furlong was conducted by email.

After editing this story, weve decided we should be able to speak with everyone in person, especially in a small school like Kings. In-person conversations are more direct, honest and frank. Thats what our readers deserve. Dr. Furlong did not want to be interviewed any other way. In the future, our reporters will not interview any member of the Kings community by email except under extreme circumstances. Someones life being in danger is the only extreme circumstance we can think of right now. Were not trying to censor people. Were making sure journalists can have the discussions that are necessary to understand the story theyre writing. That being said, Dr. Furlong did have a philosopher on his side. Heres what he said, in response to our journalist Candace Thompson: Hi again Candace, Yes, I am, in fact, opposed in to a phone interview. I'll quote a thinker from who I've learned a lot: "I take my precautions: when at least I believe I must respond, I do so without haste, on a date, in a form, and in a situation that are appropriate to the seriousness of what I want to say" (Jacques Derrida, "Reading 'beyond the beginning'; Or, the Venom in Letters, in The Instant of My Death/Demeure: Fiction and Testimony, with Maurice Blanchot [Stanford, Stanford UP: 2000], 104). I believe that every person reserves the right to do so. Given the fact that interviews, unless printed verbatim, and sometimes even then, are inherently selective and partial, it is good to have a paper trail so that in cases of disagreement, the entire record can be published so that readers can decide for themselves and that everyone involved (interviewer and interviewee) can receive fair treatment. I mean this quite sincerely, and without glibness. So, again, please feel free to send me your questions. Best, Matthew Given our FYP and CSP experience, we know that using quotes can only ever be selective and partial, so we hope Dr. Furlong sees the irony in his response. Heres to good journalism, Ben and Rachel