Monday, October 20, 2003
University Chronicle would like to present both sides of this story as it unfolds. Thus far, we have the confident words of a lawyer who promises a lawsuit against SCSU and who points out that the university has not yet refuted his client's claims. On the flip side, we have SCSU's flimsy statement - and not much else.There are two inaccuracies in thier chronology. The university was given an announcement of the reassignment at 5pm Monday (note: our administration has mastered the Bill Clinton press technique of releasing bad news on Friday afternoons or after 5pm). The Times was working from that release, since they were citing the administrator's plan by the numbers in last Tuesday morning's edition. And it's pretty clear that the rumor mill had nailed the story on campus by the previous Saturday. The Chronicle should do more reading at the Scholars.
The administration seems to be making a habit of hiding behind "no comment." We understand that administrators, including President Roy Saigo, are busy. But serious charges against a university - including a lawsuit - should be met with some comment. The university needs to tell its employees and its students where it stands on these charges and how it plans to handle the situation.
There's an adage in journalism that says, "No comment is a comment."
In this case, it's the loudest comment the university could make.