For the first time since the election aftermath in December 2000, I have had three articles in the Daily Trojan in four issues this week.

In the Opinions section on Monday, I wrote about the antiwar left’s lack of accountability. Then on Wednesday and Thursday, my long-delayed news articles on faculty gender equity throughout the university and faculty gender equity in the sciences and engineering specifically were published in the City section.

Unfortunately and embarrassingly, the “editors” introduced errors into at least two, and possibly all three, of my articles.

In my Monday column, the following two paragraphs…

Then I had another thought. As it became increasingly clear that we were targeting only military and government sites, and that our “precision” weapons really were keeping the impact on civilians to a minimum this time around, I began to wonder whether Ron Kovic will apologize.

Who is Ron Kovic? And why should he apologize?

…were changed to this:

Then I had another thought. As it became increasingly clear that we were targeting only military and government sites, and that our “precision” weapons really were keeping the impact on civilians to a minimum this time around.

Who is Ron Kovic? And why should he apologize?

You tell me… how does that get through “proofs” (when at least four editors are supposed to read the almost-finished version of the paper and check for mistakes)? It contains a sentence fragment, and moreover, it doesn’t even make sense! Why would I ask who Ron Kovic is, and why he should apologize, when I haven’t said anything about him previously? Huh?

But that was only the beginning. Wednesday’s article featured an incredible volume of editor-introduced errors. I won’t list all of them here, but here are a few of the most awful.

What I wrote:

Recent statistics show that the proportion in 2001-02 was 31 percent – an increase of less than one percent in six years.

What got published:

Recent statistics show that the proportion in 2001-02 was 31 percent during the last six years.

What I wrote:

Among faculty members who are already tenured, the 2001-02 statistics show that 19 percent were female.

What got published:

Among tenured faculty member, 2001-02 statistics show that 19 percent were female.

What I wrote:

The report’s validity was later confirmed by its author, analyst Deborah Kac at the USC Office of Budget and Planning.

What got published:

Deborah Kac, the report author and the analyst for the USC Office of Budget and Planning confirmed the reports validity.

What I wrote:

Davenport said it is not necessary for the proportion of female faculty to exactly match the population.

What got published:

The proportion of female faculty to exactly match the population is not necessary, Davenport said.

And there were more. I’m sure you can understand my frustration. ARRRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!

Today’s article was much better, largely because I went up to the office and stayed there through almost the entire process of editing, re-reading my article each time it was edited so that nothing would change for the worse. There was still one error, however, though at present I am unsure whether I introduced it or they did.

What I wrote (or meant to write):

Hiring and retention practices do not do enough to recruit and retain faculty members who don’t “fit the mold that (administrators) have in mind,” a failing that “disproportionately (hurts) women and minorities,” she said.

What got published:

Hiring and retention practices do not do enough to recruit and retain faculty members who don’t “fit the mold that (administrators) have in mind.” This failing that “disproportionately (hurts) women and minorities,” she said.

Ah, the joys of journalism.