Campus Echo,
I was disappointed to learn of some of our English department's faculty being disenchanted with the decision made concerning the appointment of our newly appointed dean of the College of Liberal Arts.
Your article headline "New CLA dean under Fire…" gave the impression that the new dean, selected for the position, had been fired before he ever started the job.
It then tied in a positive biographical overview of the dean, as though he had been interviewed for a genuine newsworthy story that turned out to be completely opposite of the intended purpose that was probably not even stated to him.
The fact that your article was done in that way is unfortunate; but, allowing the Echo to serve as the forum for faculty bull_ _ _ _, was even more disheartening.
The proper forum for the complaints aired, should have remained in the chambers of the faculty and administrators involved.
The only information I gained from it, which was too much information, was that the English Department appears to be in ruins, and now need to be cleaned up and out. It appears that some of the faculty are upset that they or their colleagues have been demoted.
They are disgruntled, and used the Campus Echo to air it.
The article was interesting until it collided with what appeared to be a hornet's nest that you, the Editor, did not realize you were being reeled into. This left the readers confused and baffled.
No fight is fair; but, when you have been invited into the ring, you can at least come out swinging knowing that you have an opponent.
Honesty about your purpose for interviewing the new dean would have allowed him opportunity for proper comment.
The article could have been done more tastefully, if published as separate pieces. The method, thus, lacked finesse.
From someone experienced at conducting national faculty searches, the ultimate decision concerning an appointment rests within the jurisdiction of the initiator of the search — not the Search Committee's. The drama exhibited here should never have landed on the Echo's agenda.
Further, the attack on the person who landed the job was inappropriate, unwarranted, and leaves room for an apology. Question is, who is tough enough to render it?
My point — there are right and wrong ways of doing things. When we dig pits for others, "we" end up falling therein.
is a member of the 
Be the first to comment on this article! Log in to Comment
You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now