Vows Column Angers Readers With Mention of Child\'s Death as a Spiritual Milestone

With the government shutting down and Marine generals being forced out for negligence, the subject of a weddings-oriented column in The Times is, no doubt, relatively unimportant. But because it has been the subject of plenty of angry reader e-mail, I am taking it up here.

The back story is a tragic one â€" a 5-year-old girl was killed in 2008 when her toy wagon rolled down a steep driveway onto a busy highway and into the path of a car. The driver of that car, Erika Halweil, was the subject, with her new husband (both are yoga teachers in the Hamptons), of a Vows column in the Sunday Styles section on Sept. 22. Vows is a popular weekly feature, begun in 1992, telling stories of how couples met and how they decided to marry.

Readers found this one, however, tone-deaf as well as offensive.

Alia Hannah Habib was one of many who wrote, upset about the article:

A few years back, the bride accidentally killed a small child with her car. (Don't worry too much about that, though, reassures Vows: “the bride was not charged.”) This bump in the road is presented as part of the bride's journey toward spiritual happiness and a deeper understanding of her destiny.

The Vows column reads: “Today, she says the accident taught her about fate, her own and the girl's, but at the time she was devastated. She started taking daily classes at Tapovana and finding comfort in Ashtanga's rigorous, some say purifying, series of poses that are practiced in silence.”

Another reader, Maria Ricapito, put it this way: “It was the way it was used â€" as a landmark in the bride's life path â€" that was just so stomach-turning. To describe the girl's death in that way (her spirit had left her body or whatever claptrap) … think of her poor parents.”

The column was also the subject of news media criticism, including a piece in The Daily Caller, which called it the worst Vows column “in the history of history.” Gawker called it “staggeringly bizarre.”

I spoke to Bob Woletz, the editor of society news, who told me that he edited the article carefully because of the mention of the child's death, asking the writer to expand on that aspect and to explain it further.

“To gloss over it seemed even worse,” he said. “It was a terrible accident but it was a part of their story.” He referred me to a Newsday report on the accident in which the little girl's father expressed sympathy for Ms. Halweil.

The Vows column, he said, “is not a reward for a life well lived,” as some readers seem to think, but represents “real stories about real people.” Vows subjects are chosen because their stories are interesting, not because they are role models, he said.

The column depicts Ms. Halweil as someone who seldom has a bad hair day and who shares “perfect sexual chemistry” with her husband.

The dreamy New Age language of this couple is missing the kind of down-to-earth expression of sadness or remorse about the accident that might have made this article less objectionable.

Lacking that element, despite repeated attempts to elicit it â€" “we had to put it in her words,” as Mr. Woletz said â€" this column might have found a better place on the digital spike than in the Styles section of The Times.

As Ms. Habib put it: “I can't imagine what Ms. Halweil had to go through to get over killing a small child through a senseless accident. Surely, there is no easy way to discuss such a tragedy. I'm certain, however, that a breezy profile about the bride's wedding is not the place to do so.”