Staff editorial: Lord deserves to face accusers; faculty should face accused
Issue date: 3/11/10 Section: Opinions
One of the most important tenets of the American legal system is that a man has the right to face his accusers. The reasons for this are both plentiful and obvious. It keeps unwarranted and false accusations from clogging the system.
It is time for the faculty members circulating the no confidence petition against Blair Lord, provost and vice president for academic affairs, to step out of the shadows and reveal themselves to the public.
These faculty members clearly have strong opinions about the way Lord has handled his responsibilities; otherwise, the petition would not exist.
What is not clear, however, is what these opinions are exactly.
The university as a whole, and Lord specifically, deserve to know what is going on and what the issues at hand actually are.
The petition makes vague references to
Lord's policy decisions and hiring practices. As a high-ranking administrator, Lord makes a lot of policy decisions and oversees all academic hires. In order to make a strong argument against Lord, the petitioners must be more specific and tell us what exactly they are against and why.
The charges being brought against Lord in the petition are serious, and the potential repercussions are even more so. The accusers are attempting to force Lord out of his position, the people who are trying to force him out have not come forward.
Instead, they cower in the shadows, throwing stones at Lord and then refusing to accept responsibility.
As of March 4, none of the rabble-rousing faculty have spoken with Lord about the petition. The question, then, is why are they hiding? What are they afraid of?
For such a petition to hold any credibility, it needs to be backed up.
If you want to rabble-rouse, we support that, but please, do it publicly.
It is time for the faculty members circulating the no confidence petition against Blair Lord, provost and vice president for academic affairs, to step out of the shadows and reveal themselves to the public.
These faculty members clearly have strong opinions about the way Lord has handled his responsibilities; otherwise, the petition would not exist.
What is not clear, however, is what these opinions are exactly.
The university as a whole, and Lord specifically, deserve to know what is going on and what the issues at hand actually are.
The petition makes vague references to
Lord's policy decisions and hiring practices. As a high-ranking administrator, Lord makes a lot of policy decisions and oversees all academic hires. In order to make a strong argument against Lord, the petitioners must be more specific and tell us what exactly they are against and why.
The charges being brought against Lord in the petition are serious, and the potential repercussions are even more so. The accusers are attempting to force Lord out of his position, the people who are trying to force him out have not come forward.
Instead, they cower in the shadows, throwing stones at Lord and then refusing to accept responsibility.
As of March 4, none of the rabble-rousing faculty have spoken with Lord about the petition. The question, then, is why are they hiding? What are they afraid of?
For such a petition to hold any credibility, it needs to be backed up.
If you want to rabble-rouse, we support that, but please, do it publicly.
The Daily Eastern News encourages on-topic, civil discussion on its articles posted online. It is our policy not to screen comments before they are posted or edit them after they are posted. However, we reserve the right to remove comments that are off-topic, malicious, libelous or include excessive foul language. The DEN also reserves the right to turn off all comments on any story it deems necessary.
Comments violating copyright law will also be removed.
Users who repeatedly violate this policy will be banned from commenting.
If you have any questions on our comment policy or wish to report a comment that you feel violates these standards, please e-mail a link to the article to our Online Editor at DENNews.com@gmail.com.
Viewing Comments 1 - 7 of 8
Riposte
posted 3/11/10 @ 8:22 AM CST
Students are just fine with anonymous course evaluations, where many of them see it as an opportunity to rip their professors for their own poor performance, and many students use the anonymous ratemyprofessor. (Continued…)
Lily
posted 3/11/10 @ 11:15 AM CST
Here's a wild idea- how about the DEN actually report. This entire edit just points out the glaring flaws in your previous story. "What is not clear, however, is what these opinions are exactly. (Continued…)
Teddy Koppel
Uhh...
posted 3/11/10 @ 2:23 PM CST
"The petition makes vague references to Lord's policy decisions and hiring practices."
Does it really? The readers wouldn't know because the original article doesn't contain any substantive details (question sources, anyone?)
But, as these student journalist should realize, you have to read between the lines. (Continued…)
Rob Junine
posted 3/11/10 @ 5:26 PM CST
Those who are presenting the petition are unhappy that someone the Provost is friends with was chosen for a specific position, against the opinions of faculty supporting a more-qualified, EXTERNAL applicant. (Continued…)
Connecting dots
posted 3/11/10 @ 7:52 PM CST
Let's by all means "connect the dots," as the commenter above suggests. First, Dean Irwin applies for the position in the Fall of 2008, only to then drop out of the running without any explanation. (Continued…)
EIU Atheist
posted 3/11/10 @ 10:00 PM CST
I am an EIU atheist -- I don't believe in the Lord. I mean Blair Lord.
Ed Murrow
posted 3/12/10 @ 4:04 PM CST
I find it so sad that the student journalists are now asking their anonymous sources to reveal themselves to the public. Do you understand the importance of HAVING sources? Do you understand that if you didn't respect their anonymity that you would have far FEWER sources? Also, do you understand why the faculty circulating this petition need to remain anonymous -- that the Provost is their boss? Do you see the irony in complaining that the faculty are anonymous, while at the very same time as you are complaining, you hide behind the collective name of "staff editorial"?
Post a Comment