Attacked by the printer's devil

THE EDITOR: Every writer and every publisher sooner or later becomes familiar with what is known as the printer's devil when what you wrote, or what you think you wrote, in all sincerity turns out to be something else entirely.

My weekly article sent to you on December 27 on the importance of making distinctions where there are differences between a disciplinary suspension and an investigatory suspension was attacked by such a devil.

What I tried to say was that only disciplinary suspensions are done without pay, but during an investigatory suspension, on the principle of innocent until proven guilty, pay continues until the investigation, which should be immediate, objective and thorough, proves otherwise. If it was withheld, it will have to be repaid when it turns out that no offence was committed.

What came out in the printed copy was that investigatory suspension is also without pay. That was wrong, and I apologise.

Fortunately, critical readers saw the mistake and pointed it out to me. Since these articles are used by academics as teaching guidelines, and I was taught it is a cardinal sin in academia to give false or misleading information, I am asking my editors to allow this belated correction, and to apologise for this mistake.

DIANA MAHABIR-WYATT

via e-mail