Updated 9:28 p.m.

Police are investigating the stabbing of a Yale student and the probable suicide of the alleged attacker, also a Yale student.

At 5.27 a.m., New Haven police were called to the Taft Apartments at 265 College St., where Alexander Michaud ’17 had been stabbed, reportedly by Tyler Carlisle ’15.

According to initial reports, Carlisle, who graduated with a B.A. in philosophy last Monday, stabbed Michaud moments before jumping from the ninth floor of the building and landing on the third-floor terrace. He died at the scene.

In a college-wide email, Yale College Dean Jonathan Holloway informed members of the community that Carlisle had died after falling from a window of the Taft Apartments and that Michaud was recovering from stab wounds at Yale-New Haven Hospital. At least one witness has been interviewed, according to a release from the NHPD.

Michaud and Carlisle were close friends, according to numerous students, and both were members of the Party of the Right, a constituent party of the Yale Political Union. The students also shared a hometown: Manchester, New Hampshire.

At the time of his death, Carlisle had plans to join the United States Army, several sources said. Raleigh Cavero ’15, calling Carlisle a close friend whom she saw as recently as last Tuesday, said he shared the apartment with another graduating senior but planned to turn over his keys to Michaud and another student who would be taking over the lease for the following academic year. Cavero, a former YTV editor for the News, said he was a mentor to Michaud.

Though one source mentioned discord between the two students in the weeks leading up to the incident, most said they were unaware of anything but friendship and intellectual camaraderie.

Michaud was in a stable condition several hours following the incident, according to the NHPD release. A source with knowledge of Michaud’s condition, but who asked not to be named due to the sensitive nature of the topic, said this evening that Michaud’s condition is “stable but not great.” Michaud was placed in a medically induced coma following the incident, the source said.

Simon Brewer ’16, president of the Yale Political Union, told members of the YPU in an email that plans for a memorial service are still being finalized.

“In this difficult time, we extend our sympathies, thoughts, and prayers to the families of these two members of our community and wish Alexander a complete recovery,” Holloway wrote in his email.

Yale Mental Health and Counseling can be reached between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. at 203-432-0290. Counselors can be reached after 5 p.m. at 203-432-0123.

Stephanie Addenbrooke, Noah Daponte-Smith and Rachel Siegel contributed reporting.

  • eastrock

    what the heck is up with this? political hit? jealously? the liberal media will get their money’s worth out of this one.

    • Ben Silver

      lol @ “liberal media”

      • 100wattlightbulb


        • Ben Silver

          Oxymoronic, really — just like you (minus the oxy — Rush took care of that) 😉

          • 100wattlightbulb

            First gen, under represented minority, or AA admit?

          • Ben Silver

            Me? None of the above. Not sure how it’d be relevant in any case.

          • NepotismIsDomesticTerrorism

            Lotta the late-Billy F. in your game. Nasal tone and head tilted back to the (far) right, too?

          • Lennie Small


            A man is dead and another is in the hospital. Time to shut up with the sophomoric, snide insults? I mean, at least until after the family returns from the funeral?

    • NepotismIsDomesticTerrorism

      What would you suggest the YDN report on this story?
      Not that the YDN would ever censor anything that would in any way reflect poorly on Yale or, far more importantly, those who make Yale what it is.
      Perish the thought.

      • Lennie Small

        How about writing the exact same article but instead of reporting that these men were POR members, just say they were both active in the YPU? That would include every single fact known to be significant to what makes this story news, with ample background detail (including the YPU reference) to frame the incident in a sensitive, non-distracting and non-inflammatory fashion. As a bonus, if it eventually turns out that politics and party memberships had absolutely nothing to do with this incident (the most likely case at this point), the YDN would be spared the need to publish a retraction of its implicit nasty contrary insinuation.

    • Rick Swirl

      Objectively stating facts pertinent to the case is a political hit.

      • Lennie Small

        Nothing reported so far indicates that the shared political party affiliation of these two men was in any way “pertinent” to what makes this incident newsworthy: the stabbing and apparent suicide.

        It IS a political hit. An insensitive, ignorant, disrespectful, inflammatory political hit. And it’s bad journalism.

        Perhaps the writers are angling to be hired at Rolling Stone?

  • John Campbell ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ

    Yale Daily News found this tidbit to be important to throw into this account. “Party of the Right”. Rather convenient, is it not? Before an investigation even concludes?

    • Ben Silver

      It seems to me that the fact that they were members of a common club is relevant information. But don’t let that stop your outrage.

      • j8892

        You’re right. It’s totally relevant, and the YDN made a proper title. However, another title circulating out there is “Right Wing Activist Commits Suicide After Stabbing Classmate.” I don’t believe this is an appropriate title. I feel you’d be inclined to agree.

        • NepotismIsDomesticTerrorism

          “Right Wing Activist Commits Suicide After Stabbing Classmate.”
          How is that headline factually incorrect?

          • kevin24

            It’s just more like “Right wing activist stabs other right wing activist” they were both plenty right wing

          • http://rasmusen.org/ Eric Rasmusen

            It’s correct, but why not “New Hampshire Student Commits Suicide after Stabbling Classmate”, or “Taft Apartments Student Commits Suicide after Stabbing Incoming Resident”?

          • Lennie Small

            O, yes, and by the same consistent token you also urge that the political affiliation of every perpetrator of a street crime be duly noted in corresponding headlines. You do urge that, don’t you? “Knife Weilding Democrat Robs Saybrook Resident and Democratic Party Member of Purse … Suspect And Victim Each Admitted Voting For Obama Twice,” is a style you find fitting. Right?

            You also argue in public fora such as this one that inclusion of such details in news media reports would be a good thing, don’t you? You’ve consistently posted comments to YDN articles describing New Haven street crime, or at least street crimes against Yale students, chastising the YDN for not noting when the criminal and victim were members of the same political party, right? You do that regularly, right?

            You’re not just writing blatantly hypocritical, inconsistent, nonsensical, hate filled comments motivated by a squalid and insensitive political agenda that disrespects the sensitivities and human beings of this tragic story, are you?

        • kevin24

          Yeah I saw that, the image that headline portrays is pretty messed up. I guess by that token “right wing activist stabs other right wing activist” doesn’t have the same ring to it. That being said YDN made the right call.

        • Ben Silver

          If you’ll notice, I commented on this story, not whichever one you’re talking about.

      • Lennie Small

        It appears to be “relevant” only in the sense that it comforts your partisan thinking and fantasies.

        Nothing reported in any media to date indicates that the shared membership of these men in a political party had any material bearing on the events that make this story news: the stabbing and apparent suicide. It is as preposterous to report their political affiliation as it would be to report that a stabbing on the streets of Dixwell involved two Democrats, even if that were a fact in such case, unless the political membership of those involved had some known or suspected bearing on the crime. Should news media reports include the political party membership of (and even the presidential candidate favored by) each person convicted of murder if that choice can be determined? Of course not. And it doesn’t matter if such facts are true and correct as published, or “relevant” to determining who commits murders in this country.

        Is there any responsible or even sane person left in the country who still maintains that it was responsible or good journalism for media to include in their reports the wildly inflammatory fact that Dorian Johnson and other Ferguson pseudo-witnesses claimed that Michael Brown had died in a “hands up/don’t shoot” position before any investigation of the matter had been conducted and the overwhelming evidence of their lies revealed? Does it matter that it was “true” that the liars had said such things? Of course not. Such inflammatory facts require additional investigation and support to justify their publication in quality news media. That something is true and in some amorphous, general sense “relevant,” are not by themselves justifications for something so inflammatory to appear in a news report. No good journalist believes or practices that way.

    • bookish

      Oh, please. How the two students knew each other is of interest. If they had been members of the same RC, same sports team, same acapella group, etc., that would have been reported too.

    • dem16

      They were just trying to show that the two knew each other through their involvement with the Party of the Right because it is a relatively small group. The authors neither explicitly stated nor implied any correlation between conservative politics and the incident.

      • Lennie Small

        But the authors knew perfectly well that such an inflammatory inference would be drawn by many readers, as evidenced by many of the snide, hateful, ignorant comments right here. And the authors could not be bothered to include any explicit disclaimer of the relevance of the party affiliation, although that would have taken half a sentence.

        What the YDN did here is bad journalism. Very bad and very common.

    • NepotismIsDomesticTerrorism

      Do you have evidence that the Alleged Stabber and the Alleged Stabbee were and/or are not members of the Party of the Right?
      Further, do you have evidence that the Alleged Stabber and the Alleged Stabbee both being members of the Party of the Right is somehow not newsworthy in this story? Say, as opposed to each being members of the crew team? Or Skull & Bones? Or another campus organization?
      Lastly, why, specifically, do you believe that the Party of the Right membership of the Alleged Stabber and the Alleged Stabbee is NOT newsworthy?

      • heavensdoor

        Alleged stabbee? At what point are you stabbed for sure?

        • NepotismIsDomesticTerrorism

          Need to give Spin Room to the Party of the Right.

  • j8892

    he wasn’t planning on enlisting, he was planning on going to officer candidate school….which is VERY different. update your facts please.

  • Christine Dargon

    Please focus on what is important – not naming a group that they belonged to on campus but that something tragic happened today. There are devastated families and friends.

    • NepotismIsDomesticTerrorism

      “Please focus on what is important – not naming a group that they belonged to on campus but that something tragic happened today.”
      The password is “Correlation”.
      In determining the reason for an action, the logical mind seeks the mutual relation between the involved parties. Relevance includes personal relationship, location, and corresponding activities or groups, i.e. a fraternity, an athletic endeavor, a romantic liaison, a financial transaction, and, yes, even a political organization.

      • Poplicola

        Correlation does not equal causation.

        • NepotismIsDomesticTerrorism

          Quite true. And censorship does not equal ignorance.
          Doesn’t hurt it much, though.

          • Lennie Small

            Exclusion from a news report of an inflammatory detail of no known significance is not “censorship.”

          • NepotismIsDomesticTerrorism

            “Exclusion from a news report of an inflammatory detail of no known significance…”
            Do you have factual proof that both individuals’ membership in the Party of the Right is an “inflammatory detail”?
            Do you have factual proof that both individuals’ membership in the Party of the Right is “of no known significance”?
            If so, please provide your evidence to support one or both claims.
            Thank you.

  • Groot ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ


  • ms2676

    It matters nothing to me what organization or political party these men are affiliated with. This is a sad situation.

    • NepotismIsDomesticTerrorism

      “It matters nothing to me what organization or political party these men are affiliated with.”
      What if their organization or political party or their interpretation of the positions and corresponding actions of their organization or political party served as the justification for the incident in question?

      • Lennie Small

        What if you don’t have a clue whether or not “their organization or political party or their interpretation of the positions and corresponding actions of their organization or political party served as the justification for the incident in question,” as is the case in this instance at this point?

        Your comments here indicate you take an absence of facts as grounds for free form ranting.

        • NepotismIsDomesticTerrorism

          Never heard of “free form ranting”, Lennie. That something you learn after law school? During prep school? Or only in some Super Top Secret organization?
          As to your question, you provide the facts with as few adverbs and adjectives as possible and allow The Reader, who does possess more than a wee bit of wisdom, common sense, and life’s experience, to formulate an opinion and, if necessary, ask for additional data from the source in question.
          The answer, Lennie, is always more facts; the answer is NEVER less facts.

          • Nancy Morris

            Lennie correctly points out that you don’t know whether or not “their organization or political party or their interpretation of the positions and corresponding actions of their organization or political party served as the justification for the incident in question.” That is obviously correct. You are just making up “facts.”

          • Mary Ann

            The term “free form” is defined in a standard dictionary to mean “created or done in any way you choose.” And a”rant” is defined in the same dictionary as a “bombastic extravagant speech.” Apply basic English syntax rules for phrase formation and see that “free form rant” means “bombastic extravagant speech created or done in any way you choose.” There you go! That wasn’t hard at all, and the term describes your comments to this article pretty well. Right on the nose, I’d say.

            It doesn’t matter that you’ve never heard of free form ranting when your every post embodies it.

            Ciao bella,

  • giller1

    I thought that typically a murder / suicide involves an actual or perceived romantic relationship.

    • Lennie Small

      If that is true, then by the standards apparently employed by the YDN in this article, such a “fact” should have been included in the article regardless of its potentially misleading, inflammatory, distortive connotations. Even if it’s NOT true, at least a mention that someone (you) SAID that he thought it was true should have gone in.

      Commenters NepotismIsDomesticTerrorism and Ben Silver and others like-minded here should insist on such “complete coverage,” to be consistent. After all, including such an inflammatory and potentially irrelevant fact would put the “nutjob” POR in a worse light!

  • Bladderball2

    As any current or former undergrad knows, POR = nutball. We all have our stories about so-and-so’s POR roommate. My wife’s freshman roommate was a full-fledged POR Randian (who has since apologized to my wife for showering her with contempt). By junior year we were all treated to somebody-Von-somebody who traipsed around the Old Campus carrying a walking stick and wearing a monocle. Then there’s that woman who got knocked up, had the baby out of wedlock (to the father’s great consternation), and went on to head the National Organization for Marriage.

    • http://rasmusen.org/ Eric Rasmusen

      Come now— I hope you are willing to allow for the possibility that a woman learns from her youthful folly. I know the case, and it’s to her credit that she let experience change her view from libertarian to socially conservative. Note, too, that she does not hide that she had a baby out of wedlock— it is something she draws on to argue for the importance of marriage.

      • NepotismIsDomesticTerrorism

        “Come now— I hope you are willing to allow for the possibility that a woman learns from her youthful folly.”
        Does an Eli boy learn from his “youthful folly”?
        Or is “youthful folly” a malady restricted only to the Eli woman?

    • Lennie Small

      “any current or former undergrad knows, POR = nutball”

      Interesting. I knew he had some problems with plagiarism charges, but hadn’t realized that Fareed Zakaria, a former POR member and YPU president, is a nutball. Or was he just a nutball while at Yale when he became YPU president, but got better … like the man who was turned into a newt by Monty Python’s witch?

      Is it really true that “any current or former undergrad knows, POR = nutball? I might have thought that the most someone who is not a nutball could have written is something more like “many current and former undergrads who do not share the political sentiments of the POR find its members disagreeable and enjoy stories that put the POR and its members in a bad light, even when the stories are unreliable and thinly sourced.” Such people may, on average, find the almost daily unflattering reports of the current Democratic front-runner less enjoyable, even when they are reliable and full sourced.

      Is it also true that any current or former undergrad knows that “Hillary = Corrupt, Influence Peddling, Lying, Unqualified?” What would you make of rumors that she’s planning to finance her presidential campaign with profits from her personal trading in pork belly futures based on information in the Wall Street Journal, which does not cover pork belly futures?

      And is it also true that any current or former undergrad knows that if you like your plan you can keep your plan, and it you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, and health insurance premiums will come down on average $2,000, that no tax will be raised or imposed on those of modest means, that every state will create and maintain its own health insurance exchange that will be financially stable and drive rates down while making health insurance available to everyone qualified, etc, etc, etc? You know, all that stuff the nutballs in the Liberal Party and Democratic Party at Yale hysterically insisted on while the POR people pointed out it was all obviously economically impossible?

      Just curious about what any current or former undergrad knows. Since you assume an understanding of what those people “know” quite on par with what Saleem Sinai (of Midnight’s Children, played in the movie by former Yale undergrad Satya Bhabha!) understood of the eponymous Children, I am anxious to seize my opportunity to ask before your telepathic abilities also convert into a refined sense of smell.

  • aloob

    Another case of right-on-right violence.

  • ethanjrt

    Condolences to Tyler’s family and hoping for Alexander’s speedy recovery.

  • Lennie Small

    This article should not have included it’s reference to the Party of the Right. That’s not because we know it is irrelevant. We don’t know its relevance, if any. If the YDN knows the relevance, the article should state it, but there is no such statement. That suggests that the YDN doesn’t’ know the relevance of these men being members of the POR. Indeed, there are no revealed grounds for thinking that these men both being members of the POR Is any more relevant to this article than their having the same weight or birthdays, if that were true.

    One thing the YDN did know or should have known is that the reference to the POR would loom quite large in the readers’ eyes and minds, especially the minds of its sillier and/or malicious readers, who would assign to the reference a relevance not supported by known facts. In other words, the YDN knew or should have known the reference would distort the article. But the reference went in anyway and these comments clearly indicate it has distorted the coverage, at least in the minds of the YDN’s more dim witted readers. In contrast, that both men come from Manchester, New Hampshire carries no inflammatory potential, and is perfectly appropriate to report, as is noting that both were members of the Political Union.

    The YDN is the judge of what facts and evidence to include in its articles. A judge presiding at a jury trial often excludes perfectly correct and even relevant evidence from the jury if the evidence is too inflammatory and would be likely to distort the truth, and a related balance is required of a reporter. Mere correctness alone is no adequate justification of a choice by the YDN or such a judge to include a particular fact in an article or trial (although the standards for exclusion are not properly the same in both cases). A balance must be struck between the significance of the evidence and its inflammatory, distortive nature. This article’s reference to the POR is obviously highly inflammatory: It both insinuates that the stabbing and apparent suicide were somehow caused by the joint membership while simultaneously casting a bad light on the POR. That’s a lot of inflammation, which would be justified if there was any basis for such insinuations. But the YDN seems to have no basis for believing it is relevant to the subject of the article at all, so there is nothing to balance and the inflammatory potential should have excluded the reference under any reasonable standard of reporting.

    That inclusion – and this article – are bad journalism for those reasons.

    • Ben Silver

      They were part of a common club. That’s relevant whether it’s an a cappella group, cultural center, or nutjob political organization.

      • NepotismIsDomesticTerrorism

        “A judge presiding at a jury trial often excludes perfectly correct and even relevant evidence from the jury if the evidence is too inflammatory and would be likely to distort the truth, and a related balance is required of a reporter.”
        You are aware that a newspaper is not a court of law?
        Further, if you believe that the YDN has, in any way, ran afoul of either libel or slander laws by publishing the fact that both individuals in this story were or are members of the Party of the Right, you may file a lawsuit against The Yale Daily News based on your assertions. Should you do so, please notify me. I will be there for the opening arguments. I’ll even bring the popcorn.
        As to the matter of slander…
        “But the reference went in anyway and these comments clearly indicate it has distorted the coverage, at least in the minds of the YDN’s more dim witted readers.”
        … “Dim witted”? And without the necessary hyphen? Who’s slandering whom?
        Regarding your claims on the “inflammatory” nature of noting both Elis’ membership in the Party of the Right, one wonders why you and, by extension, the Party of the Right, have adopted such a “We, Victim!” tone and position in this matter.
        Do you prefer that the Party of the Right operate in secret, free of public scrutiny?
        Do you believe that the Party of the Right are somehow above mention in any news story other than those authorized by the Party of the Right?
        Do you assert that you and, by extension, the Party of the Right are always Victims?
        If the answer to any of these questions is “yes” (and one is quite confident that a Real American of character and integrity such as yourself will reply to these each and every one of these queries as a matter of honor and responsibility), on what factual basis do you base your position(s)?
        Meanwhile, a good pharmacist can suggest any number of fine ointments to deal with that “inflammation” of yours.
        “They were part of a common club.”
        With a heavy accent on the “common”.

        • Lennie Small

          You wrote: “You are aware that a newspaper is not a court of law?”

          But are YOU aware that I wrote “a related balance is required of a reporter … … although the standards for exclusion are not properly the same in both cases.” Your comment is a non sequitur, or at least proof that you require remedial reading instruction.

          I said nothing about “slander.” You invented that straw man. (Mere truth alone is a complete defense to charges of slander, so your introduction of this concept is particularly clueless in this context.) Nor did I say or even suggest that I, personally, am any sort of victim. And it’s curious that you, who eschew all factual support for what you write, should be so interested in the facts I might cite in support of arguments I do not write or even suggest. I did write of the need for good journalism to take into account the likely inflammatory effects of news reports, especially on dim witted readers. Perhaps you may wish to apply your personal expertise to that argument? Just a suggestion. Write what you know.

          Your ad hominem personalization of this dialogue and reference to the POR as my “extension” are wholly unjustified and anti-rational. Without any factual support or basis, you say you place “a heavy accent on the ‘common,'” apparently entirely in the service of your personal partisan bigotries. Unfortunately, there is no effective ointment for such an inflammation.

          • NepotismIsDomesticTerrorism

            “Your comment is a non sequitur, or at least proof that you require remedial reading instruction.”
            You are free at any time to provide evidence that the YDN has violated any laws governing publication or in any way harmed the parties in this story to the degree that any or all mentioned may seek legal remedy. Please, provide the evidence. Just give me some advanced warning, if you would: I’d like to have the popcorn freshly popped when I read your legal argument.
            “I said nothing about ‘slander.’ You invented that straw man.”
            Umm, which of us typed “Dim witted”? And did so without the necessary hyphen?
            (Hint: Wasn’t me.)
            “Your ad hominem personalization of this dialogue and reference to the POR as my ‘extension’ are wholly unjustified and anti-rational.”
            I just asked why you keep jumping up and down on the veritable “We, Victim!” pedal on behalf of the Party of the Right. You have yet to answer my question. Is it some sort of natural default mechanism? Some method of trained response?
            “Without any factual support or basis, you say you place ‘a heavy accent on the “common,” ‘ apparently entirely in the service of your personal partisan bigotries.”
            Gotta admit you’ve sorta nabbed me here, but not for any sort of “personal partisan bigotries”. When dealing with an individual such as yourself who returns time and again to the same rather banal tropes, I tend to seek a quick chuckle as a means of catharsis. It’s a guilty pleasure, I know. I’ll work on it.
            Look forward to your factual evidence. Really, I do. Be sure to include legal citations and appropriate footnotes where necessary.

          • Nancy Morris

            Lennie never wrote or suggested the YDN violated any law or is exposed to any civil liability. Whatever are you talking about?

            As others have pointed out, calling someone “dim witted” is not even arguably slander, and Lennie never wrote or suggested the YDN or anyone else here has engaged in slander (and, by the way, you mean “libel” or “defamation,” not “slander” – which is oral, not written. Unless you are hearing voices.

            And Lennie did not indicate that he is or ever has been a member of the POR or had any dealings with the POR at all. Ever.

            You need to focus.

            Big need.

        • Nancy Morris

          “Dimwitted” certainly does not require a hyphen. It can be spelled “dim-witted” or “dimwitted,” in each case as a single word.

          But a quite different meaning can be expressed as two words: “dim witted.” Just as you can be a dim bulb you can be a dim wit. No hyphen is used. In the two word phrase “dim wit,” “dim” is an adjective and “wit” is a noun. But “dimwit” is always simply a noun and “dimwitted” is usually just an adjective.

          The hyphenated and unhyphenated single word form only originated circa 1925. But lots of wits were called (and were) dim prior to 1925. A “wit” is somebody clever in a particular verbal way. Someone counted as clever (that is, as a “wit”), or who considers himself as clever, but who does not in fact say or think such clever things, can be described as a dim wit through standard English syntax and phrase formation. But such a person need not be a dimwit (that is, stupid).

          People who think they are especially clever but in fact are tedious (dim wits) pose rather different social problems than those who are merely stupid (dimwits). Calling someone a dim wit is puncturing pretension, but calling a person a dimwit is just an insult. Most American political comedians are dim wits, but not dimwits. A dim wit usually has an exaggerated estimate of his own ability to derive hidden meaning from unimportant facts that actually lack the significance he assigns to them, which is a personal deficiency sometimes described as being “too clever by half.” For example, those who think themselves clever in finding particular significance in the two subjects of this article sharing a political party are clearly being too clever by half. They are dim wits. That’s a problem (mostly for them), but not the same problem as posed by dimwits, who simply can’t grasp facts or construct an analysis of them. You appear to confuse the two meanings in your comment, although it’s a bit hard to say for sure since your comment is so syntactically jumbled, perhaps from deliberate obscuration on your part. Is that a defensive conceit?

          Are you following any of this?

        • Ben Silver

          To be fair, calling someone dim-witted is not slander by any interpretation.

          And thanks for stating my implicit insult explicitly — who needs subtlety?

        • Nancy Morris

          The introduction of “slander” to these considerations is ridiculous. Slander is not even arguably involved in any of this anywhere. Take a nap.

      • Lennie Small

        “Relevant” apparently because you personally declare it to be so? By your lights if one resident of New Haven kills another the media should note that both were Democrats … or must the reporter first decide if the Democratic Party is a “nutjob” before including this one? Is Senator Sanders, for example, a “nutjob?” What if they were Communists? If a New Haven killer and victim both intended to vote for Hillary Clinton, should that factoid be mentioned … or must the reporter first decide whether Hillary is a corrupt nutjob before including that aspect by your standards? (or does “everyone” already “know” that Hillary Clinton is a corrupt nutjob, so further analysis on that point is not required?) What if they both supported Mayor Harp, who is clearly NOT a nutjob? All of those are “relevant” under the amorphous “commonality = relevance” definition you propose, so in it all goes? Really? Or is the reporter suppose to first determine whether the party or political affiliation of those involved actually had something to do with the reason there is a story in the first place: a stabbing and suicide in this case.

        Responsible, good journalists employ standards for inclusion that are not, well, the free-form rantings of a nutjob. They balance relevance with inflammation, whether you like it or not (and you clearly do not). That you believe otherwise is testimony to the decline of responsible journalism in the United States and it’s widespread replacement by agenda-driven antics: Rolling Stone, New York Times. Common, not good.

        As I noted, “are no revealed grounds for thinking that these men both being members of the POR Is any more relevant to this article than their having the same weight or birthdays, if that were true.” You haven’t even begun to answer.

        • Ben Silver

          I think perhaps you got caught-up in my tongue-in-cheek categorization of the POR and missed my larger point: that the two students knew each other is relevant to the story, as is the context in which they knew each other, just as it would be if they were members of the same a cappella group, and in a way that simply voting similarly in elections would not be.

          • Nancy Morris

            These men knew each other from their common hometown of Manchester, New Hampshire. The exaggerated significance you place on their party membership unwittingly confirms the distortive effect of including the POR reference in the article. What is more, there are NO reports as to the nature of their interactions within the POR.

    • Mulberry Field

      The fact that they were in a political club is one of
      the only details that Yale is allowing to be released because
      they typically censor the information about crimes committed
      by their own people. The administration has already been caught
      under reporting sexual assault on campus.
      The YDN is a respectable paper that doesn’t
      need to make this a salacious story. This is an attempted
      murder suicide so anyone who reads about this type of
      crime already knows the nature of this horrific kind of offense.

      • Nancy Morris

        This incident occurred at the Taft Apartments, not on the Yale campus. Yale University has to my knowledge has had nothing to do with this matter. Your suggestion that Yale has suppressed information is unfounded and unlikely, to say the least.

        • Mulberry Field
          • Nancy Morris

            That comment alone demonstrates utter and pervasive ignorance of how New Haven and Yale and their police departments relate to each other. Your claim that Yale controls the New Haven police is ridiculous, and so is your claim that the two departments are “one and the same.” The article to which you link, which pertains to Yale’s reporting under the federal Clery Act, in no way supports the bizarre assertion that the NHPD and the YPD are “one and the same.”

            YPD officers do have the enforcement powers and authorities of NHPD members, but the YPD is not reported to have been in any manner involved with this Taft Apartment incident. And Yale does not control the NHPD.

          • Mulberry Field

            Yale cops are now considered a part of the New Haven Police force. That is what I meant. Does Yale dictate to the NHPD? The only people who know that are the ones investigating the crime. All police departments are beholden to the powerful to some degree. I don’t know of any group in this town that does not have to answer to Yale. It is possible that this story has been scuttled to protect the investigation or the victim.
            The link was obviously referring to what you called an unfounded claim that Yale has in the past made an effort to under report the sexual assaults that happen to their own students.
            My argument was actually that the YDN has never insinuated anything negative about the POR. They reported on what little information they had. Most of the people reading this article are I’m sure more concerned about the well being of the victim than they are about the politics of his fraternity of club. Does the public really take college clubs that seriously?

  • Joseph Exchequer Ohmann

    One can not type cast the Yale Political Union as Right Wing , or far right etc. , Not after watching the gaggle of School of Management leftist yell at female students , Profess to be the leaders of all of the students , Wear Che Guevara T-shirts , tell the De. Town Chair they will do anything for her , Go on as paid consultants of a staunch democratic city hall and it’s machine…

    • Ofung Mi

      Type cast? Here is one. Yale admitted a bunch of lunatics. Then Yale followed through and graduated a bunch of lunatics. So what else is new?

  • NepotismIsDomesticTerrorism

    Correct in your assertion re. the implication of the headline. (NOTE: I’ll always like anyone with the handle “BubbaJoe Ace-Deuce-Trey” who posts on a Yale comment thread.)
    Were the headline to read: “Eli Man Stabs Eli Man”, one could infer some sort of lover’s quarrel; that, of course, would not be the ideal determination for two members of a “right-wing” or “Conservative (big “C” here) organization and its financial backers.

  • NepotismIsDomesticTerrorism

    Ladies and gents,
    If you want pure brilliance in censorship and how best to spin a tale, take a look at the New Hampshire Union Leader’s May 28 reaction piece “Friends struggle to understand Yale grad’s suicide” to this story.
    The Union Leader, the Beacon of Right-Wing Journalism in New England, displays mastery here in three areas.
    First, the Union Leader’s second quote in the story, which appears in its fourth paragraph, comes from someone identified as “another friend of (Tyler) Carlisle, Liz Kulig, a former political director for the New Hampshire Democratic Party”.
    Second, the Union Leader omitted the party affiliations (Conservative or Republican) of the late-Mr. Carlisle and the surviving Alexander Michaud.
    Third, the Union Leader omitted the memberships of the late-Mr. Carlisle and Mr. Michaud in the Party of the Right.
    In so doing, the Union Leader facilitates for its readers the belief (albeit incorrect) that Mr. Carlisle had some sort of affiliation in the Democratic Party and allows the reader to conclude (falsely) that this tragic incident yet again represents one of the many Conservative base memes about the “evils” of the “liberal elites” in the Ivy League.
    Even better, the Union Leader, by its omission and/or censorship, protected the Conservative and Republican parties and, perhaps more importantly, the Party of the Right from any scrutiny among its readers.
    Somewhere, George Orwell chuckled when he read the Union Leader’s brief, well-honed missive on this matter.

    • Lennie Small

      What you describe of the NHUL coverage is all responsible journalism. Certainly nothing you cite is “censorship.” Your comments are full of anger,mot the point of being unhinged.

      Noting that Carlisle had friends who are activist Democrats obviously does not suggest that Carlisle himself was a Democrat, only that he did not allow his political affiliations to narrowly cramp the scope his friendships. That you believe otherwise, as well as other things you have written in these comments, many of which are nakedly hateful and ignorantly disrespectful of the deceased, evidence a stunted misunderstanding of politics, journalism and human relations.

    • Nancy Morris

      If here and with your other comments to this article you are attempting to demonstrate that your only real criteria for publication is consistency with your own narrow political views, then you have succeeded brilliantly.

      On the other hand, if you are attempting to demonstrate anything else, not so much.

  • Susan Carlisle Sudak

    Everyone needs to just shut up about the politics and be mindful of the tragedy these two families are dealing with. You are talking about my brother, my mother’s son and my children’s uncle. Nothing you say will change the fact that the world has lost a promising young man and his family is grieving that loss. Be respectful.

    • NepotismIsDomesticTerrorism

      Ms. Sudak,
      My sincere personal condolences to you and your family for your loss.
      I discuss this issue for one and only one reason: I want to find a way to lessen the chance of a similar tragedy striking another family.
      I want to see if it’s possible, and it may well not be possible, to prevent someone else’s brother, another mother’s son, or another child’s uncle from undergoing the shock and pain that you must now feel.
      No mother should bury her son. No sister should bury her barely old-enough-to-legally-consume alcohol brother.
      No one.
      It’s my sincere hope that this senseless tragedy serves to address the issue of student suicide on college and high school campuses nationwide. When one person so young dies so soon, we’ve all lost something.
      I know of no other way to attempt to address this problem than to minutely examine all of the factors that affected the involved parties and to do so with a rigorous attention to detail and devoid of bias. I wish some other method existed and acknowledge that human imperfection makes the task most difficult.
      I doubt, with all sincerity, that society will ever eliminate the occurrence of all such tragedies; however, if we can instill one young person with enough solid information and confidence to pick up a phone, one mother to step forward in a proactive manner, one sister to say and do something to actually prevent such a tragedy, we’ll all be the better for it. I doubt anyone will notice. Prevention rarely, if ever, gains acknowledgement. But someone will stay alive and, more importantly, acquire the assistance that he/she requires.
      Again, my condolences to you and your family for your loss. I only wish I had the words to ease your pain right now.

    • aaleli

      He was a bright, decent guy, to sit next to, in class. This is how many Yalies will remember him. Don’t let the fanatics at YDN take that from you.

    • Mee U Sea

      Susan, I am so sorry for this termendous loss to you and your family. Sending prayers.

  • Nancy Morris

    Except that these two men already knew each other from their common home town of Manchester, New Hampshire and there is zero public information about their POR interactions. Mere POR membership is all that is known to the public. So what your reasoning leads to is the bizarre conclusion that where one New Haven Democrat kills another on the street, their common party affiliation should be included in the news media reports if the killer knew the victim (which is normally the case). Are you suggesting that their common party Democratic Party membership should be OMITTED if the killer and victim are strangers but INCLUDED if they knew each other? Why? Your reasoning leads to pretty strange results pretty fast.

    Once again, a commenter purporting to defend the inclusion of the POR reference reveals that it’s inclusion created an exaggerated, distortive effect.

    Common party affiliation of the victim and attacker should not generally be referenced unless there is material evidence that the party affiliation had some bearing on the attack. That is especially true where, as in this case, the inclusion of the common party membership is inflammatory. At least by reported accounts to date, there is no material evidence that the party affiliation had any bearing on the attack in this case, and reporting the party affiliation was flatly inappropriate by good journalistic standards. That the YDN and other media outlets (including the New York Times) did report the party affiliation may be a reflection of how much general journalistic standards have fallen or it may be a reflection of the degree to which other news media unwisely depended on and were misled by the defective YDN report.

  • jeffJ1

    I am very disappointed the YDN left this story open for comment.
    Many other college newspapers are more judicious about such things.

  • grggrrs176

    Graduates from Yale. Joins army.


  • Fyodor Dostoevsky

    Threesome. Drinking. He was definitely on his way to a promising Senate career, before this unfortunate tragedy occurred.