University Chronicle Extras:
Movies
|
Rate a Pic
|
Horoscopes
|
Career
|
Scholarships
|
Travel
|
GradZone
News
Briefly
Calendar of Events
Commentary
Sports
Diversions
World News
Classifieds
Login
Letter Submission
Search
Archive
Publishing Policy
Mail Subscriptions
St. Cloud State University
College Publisher
Home
>
Commentary
Tight lips hurt SCSU's image
Published:
Monday, October 20, 2003
Whether or not we agree with it, we live in a world of statements and counterstatements.
We see it every day in politics, business, advertising and the media. Usually, when somebody levels a charge at another person or organization, the accused steps up and returns a defense or a statement of wrongdoing, usually accompanied with an apology. Whatever we think about this system, it's become a standard. This, generally speaking, is the way our world works.
So it's surprising - even a little unsettling - how tight-lipped SCSU administrators have been over the latest threat of a lawsuit.
The lawsuit stems from the reassignment of Richard Lewis, dean of the college of social sciences. Lewis is now special projects coordinator for Provost Michael Spitzer. Lewis believes he was discriminated against because of his age; he is 65. Lewis' lawyer, Marshall Tanick, said he and his client can trace a history of age discrimination against SCSU's deans. The lawsuit will probably ask for $30,000-$50,000. Tanick is confident his client will prevail.
The charge alone is serious. The fact that it may cost SCSU $50,000 - less than a year after the university has paid out more than $1.2 million in lawsuit settlements - should have students, faculty and the community asking questions.
Unfortunately, those questions are going unanswered. It was not until the St. Cloud Times made this story public last Tuesday that anybody knew about it. The university did not issue a statement on the matter until Thursday. It did not address the lawsuit; the statement referenced the provisions in the MnSCU code which stated the obvious: administrators could be reassigned at any time.
Certainly, we should point out, the administration of any entity, business or educational institution, should be free to make personnel decisions without informing the world why. When situations like the present occur, however, the university should prepare a statement beyond, "We did this because rule X said we could."
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.
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.
Forum:
No comments have been posted for this story.
Post a comment
