On the eve of annual homecoming festivities, I am writing to inform you of the state into which our beloved Saint Vincent College has fallen. I regret to be doing so anonymously, but information needs no face for its validation. As a recently graduated alumnus of Saint Vincent College, I am wholly loyal to her mission and ideals. That being said, the culture, honor and reputation of the Saint Vincent community (students, faculty, staff, administrators, alumni, and friends) has been compromised by the actions of the current college administrators. If the efforts of current faculty, student government representatives, and loyal staff members were enough to remedy the offenses described below, I would not trouble you. Only after the silencing of their voices have I developed mine. Read now of what has happened, and continues to happen at our Saint Vincent.
In July of 2006, Mr. H. James Towey succeeded Mr. James Will as the sixteenth president of Saint Vincent College. Before his appointment, Mr. Towey served as director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives during the second term of President George W. Bush. Prior to this, he was employed as legal counsel to the holy Mother Theresa of Calcutta. Due to these apparent qualifications, the search committee for the presidency, led by Archabbot Douglas Nowicki O.S.B., chose Mr. Towey as the first non-academic, non-alumni, non-Benedictine president of our College. During his watch, Mr. Towey has been responsible for the disintegration of academic integrity, the adulteration of Saint Vincent's good reputation, and the loss of its patent collegial atmosphere.
"Pervasive Disregard for shared governance. . ." Faculty Concerns
By February 2008, the unacceptable environment fashioned by Mr. Towey compelled a letter of concern to be sent by the tenured faculty to the Board of Directors of Saint Vincent College. This letter, signed by seventy-five percent of tenured faculty members, states that the faculty is "gravely concerned about [Mr. Towey]'s systematic and pervasive disregard for shared governance." The letter outlines several of "the most egregious examples" of Mr. Towey's disregard for Benedictine values for communities, including "mutual respect, appreciation and charity."1
First, the faculty asserts that Mr. Towey made non-collaborative decisions regarding the appointment of a new Vice President for Academic Affairs, resulting in the appointment of an unqualified un-tenured candidate--one from the faculty minority who shared his unpopular vision. The Vice President for Academic Affairs is not only the representative of the faculty in the highest echelon of administration, but is a critical figure in the tenure process for junior faculty, and an influential figure in edifying the student body. The search committee was prematurely disbanded, then abruptly reconvened for the purpose of ratifying the President's choice (please see the letter for an in depth discussion of this issue).2
Second, the faculty informs the Board of Directors of Mr. Towey's unilateral -- and possibly dishonest -- modification of Saint Vincent College's Middle States self-assessment. This document is part of the accredation process, to which all respected institutions of higher education subject themselves. Until September 2007, open dialogue in the form of Town Hall meetings had been used to garner opinions from the Saint Vincent community at large. Following a meeting convened by the President's assistant in September 2007, Mr. Towey took sole ownership of the assessment, excluding the rest of the community and subsequently "sanitizing" the report.3
The letter by the faculty was dismissed by the board of directors as a heinous affront rather than the highly concerned memorandum of those who must operate daily in the context of the university. Despite the legion opinion of liberal, conservative, lay, religious, and areligious faculty members, the problems were disregarded by Mr. Towey and the Board as "intended to create pressure upon the President and weaken his strong leadership by alarming the Board". 4
"Students in attendance were overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the responses that were given." Current Student Concerns
Following another Town Hall meeting in April 2008, in which Mr. Towey was the central figure, the Student Government Association (SGA) drafted a letter to the president voicing its displeasure with his administrative style. The students spoke out because of invasive Internet censorship, where students were (and are) denied access to left-wing (and other controversial) websites, gambling websites, and pornography by a method not unlike parental restrictions on television or America Online. The students' argument is better than I could paraphrase: 567
"Students have also expressed displeasure at the implementation of the Internet Censorship. Regardless of individual views on the censor itself, whether supportive or non-supportive, the process of implementing and the disregard of student opinion and involvement is where student unease lies. Students feel separated from policymaking, and as the representatives of dealing with policy changes, both social and academic, the Student Government Association feels that it should have been more informed and consulted on the changes prior to their initiation."8
Instead of collegiality or progress toward a mutually beneficial resolution, Mr. and Mrs. Towey responded paternalistically and heavy-handedly. A friend of mine states, "I am not writing to 'bad mouth' others in Mr. Towey’s family, but the fact that 1) Mr. Towey personally calls the President of SGA to scold him for writing the letter is appalling to the idea of free thinking and a strong working relationship between the administration and SGA, and 2) Mrs. Towey publicly scolding a member of SGA for not discussing the letter publicly and calling the student a 'coward' for not discussing a private letter to the president is once again appalling and very unprofessional."9
"The long term damage to the college's reputation is unknown at this point. . . "10 Alumni and Public Concerns
Aside from the malicious silencing of dissident voices (faculty, monastic, or student), Saint Vincent, by outward appearances, is flourishing. Saint Vincent's website says that "major accomplishments during the first three years of [Mr. Towey's] presidency include record levels of applications, enrollment and new pledge commitments; three consecutive budget surpluses; and the initiation of the largest construction and renovation project in the College’s history. Mr. Towey has made a priority of recruiting the highest-ever level of minority and international students. [...] He created the document, Five Wishes, the most widely used advance directive in America with over 13 million copies in circulation. His recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on the rights of disabled veterans to receive proper advance care planning led to corrective action by the US Department of Veterans Affairs."
However, third party sources do not corroborate these claims. Saint Vincent, known for its Christian tolerance and multi-vocality, was named to Young America Foundation's 10 Most Conservative Colleges list in 2008-200911. It is important to mention that some schools in this category are military academies -- and that the College should be careful about conflating political conservatism and religious conservatism, as the former's views are often antithetical to those of the latter. More interestingly, while enrollment did increase during Mr. Towey's tenure, this was achieved by the dilution of Saint Vincent's reputation. According to US News and World Report, enrollment increases were attained almost entirely by increasing the acceptance rate (from 62% to 65.3%), not by increasing academic standards. While a broad outreach to other states may be commendable, it may have been merely a consequence of Saint Vincent's perceived increasing inferiority to comparable Pennsylvanian options12, an inferiority which is better understood locally than nationally. Perhaps most importantly, US News and World Report and The Princeton Review listed Saint Vincent College as a Tier III school. This is the second lowest ranking for accredited institutions offered by these publications, and the poorest showing for Saint Vincent in national rankings during its entire history.
Of course, this is unnerving for professors, current students, and alumni. The demotion of Saint Vincent relative to its peers, in the eyes of contemporary third party assessors, reflects poorly on all those associated with the College. The degrees of past graduates are suffering a devaluation at the hands of Mr. Towey's policies and administration. The degrees of recent graduates are less competitive in a increasingly brutal job market. The prestige of Saint Vincent faculty is severely diminished, as those less familiar with Saint Vincent's illustrious and long-standing commitment to educational excellence will find such disparaging judgments easier to make.
Recently, Mr. Towey has further contributed to the defamation of Saint Vincent's name. In a recent Op-Ed column in the Wall Street Journal,13 the mistaken Mr. Towey circulates erroneous claims on the national stage. While factual inconsistencies may be forgiven in interviews, such errors are unacceptable in written articles14. According to The Huffington Post (an online news publication):
"Towey stated that the message of the veterans' health-care system to its patients was 'hurry-up-and-die' and he contrasted the 'death book' with 'Five Wishes,' his own advance care planning document [...] In his op-ed, Towey stated that this panel did not include any representatives of faith groups or disability rights advocates. In fact, according to the VA, the panel included a priest, a rabbi, a renowned disability rights advocate, and the president of the organization that produces Five Wishes, the alternative advance care planning document that Towey is promoting and selling."
While there are assertions that Mr. Towey opposes Your Life, Your Choices because of personal reasons, I would rather limit my comments to concerns immediately involving the well-being of the Saint Vincent community, rather than to the personal motives of Mr. Towey. It must be noted, however, that such political lobbying, and the association of our non-profit College's name with that activity, may very well attract the ire of the Internal Revenue Service.151617
If you are now convinced of the distress in which our alma mater finds herself, please let us collaborate towards a constructive end. Let us ensure that Mr. Towey's stay at Saint Vincent ends once his presidency is reconsidered. I had originally hoped to conduct a signature drive toward this end, however issues of retaliation would prevent some Bearcats from publicizing names in conjunction with resistance efforts. Online signature drives lack the visual effect of paper ones. Additionally, on-campus protests would be easily ignored or quickly dispersed by the administration. For my part, obtaining an anonymous mailing location is nearly impossible. Therefore, let us consider two options for the reparation of the aforementioned ills.
1.) Sign (illegibly if you prefer) this document and send it via USPS to H. James Towey Office of the President 300 Fraser Purchase Road, PA 15650. 2.) Please refrain (or ask your parents to refrain) from contributions and donations to Saint Vincent College during the remainder of Mr. Towey's tenure.
Of these two, I especially encourage the second because it is easy, anonymous, and effective in that all modern institutions, without exception, will act whenever financial or funding issues are involved. For those worried that such action would be deleterious to the future of the institution, I agree but say in return that Mr. Towey is currently more detrimental than one or two years of donations. Saint Vincent is an institution built for the long haul. A temporary remission of donations will serve to materialize our views, and not hurt our beloved institution.
I, personally and on the behalf of those harmed by Mr. Towey, thank you for your attention and sympathy regarding this matter. I will, this weekend, be among you. I look forward to speaking with you all.
Aquiloaster
notes
1 This letter is available publicly on my facebook profile: Aquiloaster Otr, as well as via email by contacting aquiloaster@gmail.com
2 At St. Vincent, the abbot of the monastic community serves as the Chancellor of the College. Aside from this position and that of president, the VPAA is the most influential position at the College.
3 This is the word used by the faculty to characterize Mr. Towey's alterations.
6 See the SGA letter on Aquiloaster Otr's facebook page.
7 Philsophers (e.g. Aristotle) agree that free choice of the will is a necessary prerequisite for any virtuous act. Mr. Towey should not be robbing the men and women of St. Vincent of their God-given freedoms.
8 This letter is available publically on my facebook profile: Aquiloaster Otr, as well as via email by contacting aquiloaster@gmail.
12 Saint Vincent is ranked below Allegheny, Bloomsburg, Duquesne, Gannon, Juniata, Mercyhurst, Messiah, Moravian, Rosemont, Seton Hill, Shippensburg, St. Francis, St. Joseph's, Susquehanna, Scranton, Ursinus, and Westminster, among others.http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/search/location+PA
A caution however. Do not send it to Mr. Towey ONLY as it will be dismissed into his circular file along with other alumni correspondence and various Benedictine principles. Make several copies and send them to the Abbot, Fr. Vernon, Fr. Earl, Fr. Renee, Fr. Demetrius and Matt Fisher. Also consider members of alumni council, Ann M. Giacobbi, Gregory J. Maurer, Michael A. Mercolini, Rev. Gilbert J. Burke, Warner O. Johnson, Jr. And don't forget about the board of directors, J. Christopher Donahue, Marianne R. Anderson, Jude W. Brady, O.S.B.,Lawrence E. Brandt, J.C.D., Ph.D.,Suzanne W. Broadhurst, John J. Degnan, Carolyn D. Duronio - AH WELL THE REST CAN BE FOUND HERE: http://www.stvincent.edu/board_of_directors.
You all would be well advised to use regular US mail in addition to e-mails since the e-mails may be monitored on campus.
Pile 'em on. Sending them to Towey alone will do nothing but waste postage and fill the dumpster.
Part of the damage is that prominent members of the faculty, who have given freely of their talents and time in the past, are now reluctant to even recruit, out of their real reservations about encouraging prospective students to come to the place this has become.
I respectfully suggest that a more forceful approach is necessary. Others have sent letters and the reply was condescending with the basic: love that you're interested in SVC, remember people have different views and......don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
You have all the relevant concerns in your letter and you have made a point that, quite frankly, I had considered only in general terms: signatures. I do understand that issues of retaliation would prevent some from using their names, however I disagree that online signatures (or some similar approach) would lack the visual effect. Most of us in both our business and personal lives use email and text messaging as the dominant means of communicating with clients, employees, friends, children, faculty, students and our elected officials. It is such an accepted practice that it is typically not given a second thought. Hell that's the way Towey does his articles, his blog and probably a great deal of his official correspondence.
My concern is that we don't know who would take advantage of your research and generous offer to copy, sign and mail this document to Towey. But if we took the body of your work, make additions or changes if and where appropriate and sent it to say the SuperAdmin would there be a way for all concerned parties to review a copy and then give the Admin the okay to insert their name under signatures and then start the mailing? And for those who can't sign, use your user name (perhaps with a class year, if safe) and let us state the reason that some of us must remain anonymous - or if we have enough signatures, those name can carry the load for those who can't sign. I'm not a techie but there must be a way.
Plus we need to send it to many more people and I have some ideas at the appropriate time.
I just believe, like the faculty approach, that there is strength in numbers, especially in significant numbers and we want a wider mailing list, including papers, email lists (if appropriate), other websites, etc. The point is not only to be heard but to be heard loud, clear and wide. Then at least we have a chance that our asses won't be the ones that the door hits.
The entire faculty has been emailed this document, as of this afternoon. Also, we have a list of nearly 4,000 alumni email addresses, so they should all have seen this letter within the week. I am listed under Aquiloaster Otr on facebook, and have been friending current students and recent graduates until I inflamed my carpal tunnel. I am perfectly OK with anyone using the document I wrote for the good of Saint Vincent, ESPECIALLY in the form of a signature drive. I, perhaps cynically, think that withholding donations is more of an attention getter than a signature drive--it speaks to the administrators in the only language they seem to understand. It also de-bunks the fallacious idea that Towey non-supporters are a disregard-able minority.
<p>Aquiloaster ... mon dieu!</p> <p>You have put it all into more than the proverbial "nutshell." You comments are very, very clear, eloquent, and absolutely on the mark, and I mean abssolutely on the mark. You words are a testament to what has been happening on the SVC campus these past three plus years.</p> <p>James Towey was not the choice of the search committee, anymore than his handpicked VPAA was. Abbot Douglas, by his own admission referring to Towey's appearance on campus a year before his "appointment:" <a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06109/683206-59.stm">www.post-gazette.com/pg/06109/683206-59.stm</a></p> <p><font color="#ff0000"><em><strong>Last fall, Mr. Towey again was at St. Vincent, this time to speak at the Red Mass, a special service for attorneys.</strong></em></font></p> <p> <p _counted="undefined"><font color="#ff0000"><em><strong>Archabbot Douglas R. Nowicki, chancellor of St. Vincent College and St. Vincent Seminary, told him that Mr. Will, who had intended to stay for five years at no pay and was in his sixth, might be leaving at the end of the school year.</strong></em></font></p> </p> <p _counted="undefined"><font color="#ff0000"><em><strong>"I had my eye on him," Archabbot Nowicki said."</strong></em></font></p> <p _counted="undefined">One can only guess at what the cost of the search was (one both accounts, the Towey search and the VPAA search)<br /> <br /> There is nothing in the record that will prove that Towey has raised a significant dime for Saint Vincent College. There is enough on the record to show that he has raised a significant dime for himself, both at SVC and through his "non-profit" Aging With Dignity and its Five Wishes brochure, something he continues to flog under the guise of concern for humanity.</p> <p _counted="undefined">I suggest ot all who wish to write to SVC ... you wil waste your time sending simply to Towey or the Abbot. You will be answered with obfuscation and boilerplate folderol. Be prepared to withstand the same obfuscation and folderol if you attend on the weekend and Towey or the Abbot addresses any group. Copy what you write to Benedictines you know, so non-receipt by the principals can't be claimed.</p> <p _counted="undefined">THREADS TO REVIEW</p> <p><a href="http://www.svcalum.com/comments.php?DiscussionID=320">www.svcalum.com/comments.php</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/westmoreland/s_445163.html">www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/westmoreland/s_445163.html</a></p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
<p>MAY I HUMBLY SUGGEST THAT A COPY OF AQUILOASTER BE SENT TO THE TRIBUNE-REVIEW, THE PITTSBURGH POST GAZETTE AND INSIDE HIGHER EDUCATION, IF IN FACT THIS HAS NOT ALREAD BEEN DONE?</p>
Aquiloaster did an awesome job, but I'd propose a smaller version for the media. Most newspapers have a word limit on letters to the editor, generally speaking. And while some may make an exception for a letter with scores if not hundreds of signatures, no editor can justify spending an entire op-ed page on little ol' us.
I took the liberty of submitting this to both managing editors of Inside Higher Education. I will do the same for the Chronicle of Higher Education, an even better known journal of post-secondary education. Can someone help by spearheading the letter's dissemination to area newspapers (or National Ones)?
This letter is so well structured and documented that it cannot be taken as the work of one of the "few disgruntled," the "few" part never true in the first place.
Anyone unaware of the current SVC will be enlightened, or at least forced to ask questions. In light of the letter's documentation, the ordinary Towey fluff will not be taken at face value.
Congratulations to the writer. You have done this forum and the college a great service.
John Smetanka responds to Aquiloaster. This is unedited.
Dear Anonymous,
Please stop emailing your vitriolic manifestos to alumni and faculty of Saint Vincent College. Your cowardly actions severely tarnishes the reputation of Saint Vincent College.
Your letter is full of outright lies, distortions of fact, and half-truths. If you have the ability to read, please review the US News Rankings for the past 5 years – if not you may want to ask one of your friends to do so – if you have any friends. You will quickly discover that your statement regarding SVC’s historic rankings is incorrect, like so much other trash in your letter. Academically we are making slow but significant progress in the benchmarks USNWR uses for the past two years.
Stop the lies, distortions, and outright evil that you are doing.
I pray that the darkness in your heart and soul is lifted,
If you have the ability to read.....If you have any friends.... How unprofessional of smetanka to make these statements in replying to this letter.
What is really disturbing is how towey wants public discussions, use of real names on this site and even states that he wants to bring the issues out into the sunlight but when given a chance to discuss the policy of we can do any thing we want to the students, he hides behind some pricey lawyers to keep this issue from becoming public - to avoid being held accountable.
<p>I will freely admit that while I am not the author of the letter that offended you, I volunteered a few moments to edit it. To the author's credit, I had little work to do; his eloquence and attention to detail made his love for our alma mater absolutely clear. And in all honesty, I found nothing new in his assertions. Many of the abuses he cited are well-known to those of us who still care about Saint Vincent College.
<p>It is regrettable that his original letter had to be sent anonymously. The atmosphere on campus, thanks to the machinations of the current regime, is toxic at best. The principles of academic freedom and personal expression have been compromised by rank fear and intimidation. I empathize with the sender, for he has many friends in the Saint Vincent community, and it is quite possible that they would be subject to reprisals if his identity were known.
<p>I would not put such pettiness past your Machiavellian ilk. I am signing this note knowing full well that I may be putting others at risk.
<p>As for your charge of "outright evil", it is very disturbing that you choose not to acknowledge the assertions in the letter, as they cite well-documented incidents and widely held opinions. I would not expect such behavior from an official of a liberal arts college, especially one that prides itself on a tradition of intellectual exchange and thoughtful deliberation. (Then again, you never did attend Saint Vincent. From the tone of your letter, that's a shame, for it instead sounds as if you obtained your degrees from Dairy Queen.)
<p>Please refrain from tarnishing the reputation of our alma mater further with your embarrassing retorts. They lack coherence, professional courtesy, and even simple subject-verb agreement. And they are keeping my checkbook closed.
To be sure, Smetanka was a professor at SVC, and was a good professor. I had him for a class and found him to be approachable and...well, jovial.
I do not understand or comprehend his antitenure position and find it disturbing that the subversion of tenure at the college was rewarded with an administrative position.
And also: let's be fair. Smetanka is a graduate of colleges that rank far higher than SVC on those rankings. Would this kind of behavior (and by this I mean the general administrative behavior at SVC) be tolerated at, for example, the University of Chicago, where Smetanka got his Ph.D.?
Though Aquiloastor's comments concerning SVC's rankings may not be entirely fair or accurate (the shift from regional ratings to national ratings might have changed SVC's position in the lists), the same cannot be said for his other observations. Perhaps, rather than singling out the defensible ratings matter, the administration might address specifically what are the half truths and lies contained in the poster's letter. It would seem that disproving their verity, if that is entirely possible, would be of benefit to those in the administration who protest against the content.
Might it be added that those who experienced and know Dr. Smetanka as a dedicated, excellent teacher are somewhat baffled by the new hat he has chosen to wear.
Might is also be added that there are several people (including Dan Caugherty) who post in the open on this forum. There is no cowardly action here, and certainly no hiding behind any cloak of invisibility. One might expect more of the same as days pass.
Smetanka may be a graduate of colleges that rank higher than SVC in those rankings but even the highest ranking of schools cannot improve questionable character. Smetanka's former excellent teaching skills have been a topic of conversation for some time. I have heard this myself from many alum who are now left to wonder what happened to the excellent educator they knew. Whether it's drinking the kool-aid or fulfilling promises or simply an admirable but misguided quest to be a good company man the good Dr. S would do well to endeavor to lift his own heart and soul from darkness.
The ad hominem character of the current VPAA's response to Aquiloaster well illustrates the unattractive and Gollum-like character of so many of the choices and actions of the current administration. The (hopefully outgoing) archabbot brought in the Trojan Horse that contained Mr Towey, Mr Grace, and the latter's son in law. At least many of the faculty, all the same, recognize the Trojan Horse for what it is and cannot in conscience accord it any legitimacy. Dr Smetanka, however, has chosen actively to collaborate with the foreign occupiers, as it were. The archabbot and Dr Smetanka have thus chosen, for their part, to sow wind (to borrow either from Hosea or from Amos), and so they ought not be surprised if they reap the very whirlwind that they presently seek to deploy against anyone and everyone who refuses to support or collaborate with the miniature version of Vichy France that they either cannot or will not recognize for what it is.
<p>Thanks for writing such a fine letter, Aquiloaster. I just sent a hastily drafted note to Dr. Smetanka. Here it is:</p> <p>Dear Dr. Smetanka,</p> <p> I read both the letter critical of the current leadership at SVC (posted on svcalum.com) and your reply. I have been in academe for forty years, and I have to say that your reply was one of the more pathetic examples of administrative letter writing that I have seen. Don't you have to do more than make accusations and demean the writer's character? Your last line was a gem. Are we to suppose that the letter writer's soul has been overtaken by the forces of darkness? It seems that someone trained in the sciences could do better than this. What would your professors say of what you wrote? My guess is that they would be embarrassed for you. </p> <p>I was shocked to learn that you were appointed VPAA without tenure or faculty support. Remarkable. You serve entirely at the will of Mr. Towey, the main target of the letter. A reasonable person might say that these facts help explain your response to the critical letter. However, they don't explain the juvenile tone. </p> <p>I participate in the svcalum openly. </p> <p>Yours truly,</p> <p>Michael Yates, PhD C'67</p> <p>ps I have a blog, and I may write something about SVC on it soon. </p>
Thanks to Dr Yates for speaking publicly on behalf of those of us who are not yet in a position to speak publicly and in our own names.
It might be helpful to Dr Yates to point out that it is not exactly clear whether it is simply because of Mr Towey that Dr Smetanka is in the position of VPAA. It is at least possible that Dr Smetanka is VPAA because he is the choice of Fr Campion Gavaler, who seems to have been calling a lot of the shots behind the scenes for many years with respect to what the archabbot says and does. Why Fr Gavaler has such influence over the archabbot is not clear, but it does seem that if Fr Gavaler favors a person, whether lay person or monk, for whatever reason, that such a person is "in" and if not, that such a person is "out." Fr Gavaler's understanding of the Catholic faith is certainly not that of Regnum Christi, to which it seems Mr Donaghue and Mr Towey belong, but would rather seem to be more continuous with that of Abp Rembert Weakland, of whom Fr Gavaler is more or less a contemporary. The following is just a speculation, but it might have been the case that Mr Donaghue wanted Mr Towey to be college president for his own Regnum Christi reasons, that the archabbot wanted Mr Towey merely because he thought Mr Towey could open up connections to people with money and influence, and that Fr Gavaler accepted a person theologically uncongenial to him as president on the condition that Dr Smetanka-- whom Fr Gavaler does appear both to favor and to advise--would be made VPAA. Dr Smetanka would have been acceptable to Mr Towey precisely because Dr Smetanka had been able to teach at St Vincent without tenure--which both Mr Donaghue and Mr Towey seem to want to eliminate the better to make the college over in the Regnum Christi image.
If it in fact the case that Dr Smetanka had refused to go through the tenure process because he did not judge the members of the Rank and Tenure Committee competent to evaluate him, then Dr Smetanka would seem always to have thought himself competent to evaluate faculty and to be himself VPAA, independently of any Rank and Tenure committee. Dr Smetanka's low regard for the abilities of other faculty would have well suited him to be VPAA under Mr Towey, regardless of the majority of the faculty's inability to recognize the legitimacy either of Mr Towey as president or of Dr Smetanka himself as VPAA.
But perhaps at another level, both Mr Towey and Dr Smetanka do know they are not qualified to be in the positions they have come to hold only thanks to the abbot's acceding to Mr Donaghue's desires on the one hand and to Fr Gavaler's desires on the other hand, simply so that the abbot himself--who does not seem to have firmly held theological convictions of his own one way or the other--could hire as president someone whom he thought could get the college (and perhaps also the archabbot himself) "on the map.'
It is thus perhaps the case that Dr Smetanka's and Mr Towey's bellicosity is rooted in profound insecurity on their parts. Such insecurity would give birth in turn to a self-defending arrogance, with a corresponding viciousness directed toward anyone who points out to them the "inconvenient truth" of the situation. Some analagous condition would seem to be that out of which the archabbot is operating as well.
Sadly, accordingly, if the possible scenario outlined above hits anywhere close to the mark, neither the archabbot, nor Mr Towey, nor Dr Smetanka can be reasoned with. All attempts on the part of the faculty, lay or monastic, to deal with them politely, but firmly, and rationally have been and will remain doomed to failure. They can only interpret any resistance to them as treason against the college that they are determined to punish by any means at their disposal, and they have considered and will continue to consider even illicit and immoral actions against persons entirely justified.
The college and monastery are thus in a truly lamentable condition. The archabbot, Mr Towey, and Dr Smetanka are going to have to subjected to ever increasing pressure by alumni, faculty, etc. if the college is to be liberated from them, which is something that needs to happen for the sake of their own ultimate wellbeing as well as for the survival and revival of the institution. Whatever is to be done practically by faculty and alumni, it has to be done publicly and in common by the various constituencies. A faculty vote of no confidence, alumni contriburtions withheld and put in an escrow account, board member resistance to the archabbot and Mr Donaghue--all such things seem to be necessary to undertake as soon as possible. Rationally deployed force--and thus force that is always cognizant of their dignity as human beings and that is deployed against them with sorrow and regret that such is necessary, and in as measured/minimal a manner as is possible--would seem to be the only course of action left to the various constituencies.
The archabbot is ultimately responsible for having handed over the college to outside persons who are part of the "right wing" Regnum Christi, which is an arm of the Legionaries of Christ, whose founder publicly assented to the Church's sexual teaching, but who turns out to have been guilty of the sexual abuse of young people both male and female.
The archabbot himself, however, almost certainly did not bring in these folks in order to promote the vision of Regnum Christi, but simply to try to achieve some more worldly objectives.
It's important to remember also that Saint Vincent's own Rembert Weakland, a paradigmatic figure of the "left wing", has had his own difficulties in the area of consecrated chastity, even though he is more honest than the Legionaries' founder in tha the now retired Abp Weakland at least publicly admits that he dissents from the Catholic Church's official teaching on sexuality in his recently published memoir.
Be that as it may, Abp Weakland's abbatial leadership at Saint Vincent was by no means an unmixed blessing. The current absence of a coherent archabbatial theological vision, coupled with an increasingly autocratic archabbatial manner of governing, which together have made possible an invasion by the "right," have their ultimate origins in Abp Weakland's own "left wing" governance of the abbey, which, like that of the current archabbot, seems to have been at least as autocratic as had been the governance style of Archabbot Strittmatter, whom Weakland succeeded.
In short, neither "right wing" nor "left wing" have any grounds for boasting or selfrighteousness. People on all "sides" have sinned and have fallen short of God"s glory, as Paul says somewhere, in a way that has now brought Saint Vincent to the brink.
What must unite the various constituencies at this point is a renewed dedication to making Saint Vincent the best college it can be the hard way--through teaching, scholarship, and collegial committment to acting strictly in accord with the College Handbook, which the current administration has sought by every means possible to render a dead letter. The college must be liberated from the control of the people who have sought to "promote" the college by means of shortcuts and gimmicks such as have been the order of the day for the last three years. Whatever the manner in which the college's Catholic identity is to be preserved and fostered, there simply are no shorcuts to it. And there is little use in the college's Catholic identity if the institution is not a COLLEGE in all the senses of this rich and venerable term.
<p>Johnnybob,</p> <p>Thanks for an interesting take on things. There are always layers of truth and deception going on in most institutions, colleges not least among them. I remember Father Campion without fondness. He gave the impression of a "folk mass" priest, but he was really, I thought, a duplicitous man. Until recently, I thought that perhaps my negative view of him was due to his giving me a C in a theology class senior year, which cost me summa cum laude. I wrote my roommate's paper, and he got a B+. In my own paper, I gave a critique of the Sermon on the Mount, which the pseudo tolerant Father couldn't abide. It irritated me no end because I had had other theology professors, overtly much more conservative, who were much more willing to entertain another point of view. Then, recently, I found out from a person in a position to know that Father Campion is indeed duplicitous, more so than I could have imagined. I know the type from years of involvement in college politics, If he is a man "behind the throne," so to speak, then we have a cunning and unprincipled enemy on our hands.</p> <p>Michael Yates</p>
<p>Wow. Dr. Smetanka's response, as others have stated, is incredibly unprofessional. For him to use that wording while speaking in the capacity of VPAA is inexcusable.</p>
Well, to be fair, and I work in higher education--as many of you know, as a part time professor--there is nothing more agrivating that getting an anonymous email bitching about stuff, it happened to me once when I had an especially under-performing class and they were upset about their grades. When I talked to my supervisor, just to even just talk about any valid criticisms the anonymous email had, he just crumpled it up and threw it away, and said, "unsigned complaints have no legitimacy, and don't think about it any more."
The difference here is that there is a systematic problem, but I think it's a dark alley to go down here. I am intrigued by Smetanka's response, but I can kind of understand it having been there myself.
Me, I just didn't write back and told the class in person that if they had complaints what the proper channels are, and to actually read the book before the next test.
Comments appreciated 4ever, but this is the manner of it.
This "anonymous" mantra the SVC Croney Club keeps coming up with is a crock of goose poop. Anonymous is BAD only when it doesn't suit them. Anonymous is GOOD when it does suit them.
There have been many demonstrationis of that fact at SVC over the years and especially the past three years. Don't buy their crap. It's just their defense against the truths they don't want to see in the open, and it's a defense that grows weaker by the day, if not the hour.
If they had any historical or literary sense, they would know that anonymity is especially reserved to oppressive regimes, to combat against perniciousness when few weapons are to be had, to go underground when openess is squelched or ignored.
Besides, there are people posting in the open who have said pretty much what the "anonymous" have said. The administration doesn't say much about those. The faculty letters and the student government letter weren't exactly issued anonymously. The second faculty letter, especially, was pretty specific about Towey's offenses. You can't get more specific or non-anonymous than when a faculty member calls the college president a liar, or calls on him to resign, and in public.
Whatever the representatives of the SVC administration have to say these days amounts to a desperate, weak piss into a wind blowing counter to the pisser.
I understand that a post, similar to the one sent on by the VPAA, has been issued by another drinker of the New Koolaid. Has anyone seen it?
I don't disagree with you that the anonymous nature of this whole thing is not really a reason to dismiss it all, but there is something to be said about sending mass emails to professors and administrators anonymously and posting their responses on here, and editing them (even if it is clear that they are edited and how they are edited). Also, if I'm not mistaken, someone distributed an anonymous letter in the Review, right? That is crossing the line.
Back in the 90s a student put a signed letter in the Review, one that was not submitted to the Review, and if I'm not mistaken this led to a serious sit down between the student and the editors of the paper and the dean of students at the time. The student might have had to make a public apology for doing so.
I do not have a problem with people doing what they want, I just think that lines are being crossed. Whether righteous or not, I am growing uncomfortable with my association to this website. I enjoy reading and contributing, but I don't think this kind of behavior should be endorsed. In fact, I am questioning whether to continue participating in this website.
I commend Aquiloaster for his guts. I just disagree with the methods.
Someone else posted a "caution."
I had a professional situation where I had to consult a lawyer regarding a libel issue. Libel is very hard to prove, unless someone misrepresents another person and intentionally distributes the misrepresentation. Whether these letters misrepresent SVC or 2E is debatable--this can be argued (note that we now have an administrator making a public claim that statements are misrepresented). If it ever ends up that Smetanka, 2E, etc. are fired, which is what some of you want, there may be a case against the individual who wrote these letters and this website. If they can't find a job after they leave SVC, which is what some of you would probably want, there may be a case against the individual and this website. And perhaps all of us as "unnamed individuals" as lawsuits usually name. The fact that it is done anonomously may strengthen a case that it statements are misrepresented, and anonymous handles may be made public.
I will post part of this in the caution thread as well, and would love to hear any lawyers speak.
<p>Bearcat4EVr,</p> <p>I don't know that lines are being crossed. The letter from the VPAA was not edited, at least that is what Aquiloaster told us, and he seems to be a scrupulous person with respect to this. The VPAA could not possibly have expected that his letter would be confidential. Those with publicaly available email addresses don't have any reasonable expectation that they won't get unsolicited emails, ones easily deleted in any case. And in a world where a professor's (a monk's no less) office is invaded and his computer files searched, who can blame anyone who finds this sort of thing abhorrent but is reasonably worried about retribution of one kind or another from using whatever means possible (though peaceful and doing no real harm to anyone) to get out his message anonymously. </p> <p>Does anyone doubt that Towey would use unsavory methods to get back at his opponents? I don't.</p> <p>Michael Yates</p>
<p>4ever... whether you want to continue to post or not is a matter of choice for you... we'd hate to lose you.</p> <p>Who and when recently did someone post an anonymous letter in the review. Not, never. It was inserted inside the Review. I dont' know if that's crossing the line or not, but it was damned clever... otherwise the powers would have collected it within minutes.</p> <p>Of course, doing so in Berlin ca 1942, would have resulted in torture and death. In the America of 2009, fortunately, it will not. If the administration of Saint Vincent College finds that anything has crossed the line, or if someone has been "Libeled" let them make such a charge... They would have to prove their case, and I think many would be delighted to have them under oath. At that point, we would be able to determine to what extent they have been affected by the Seventh Commandment.</p> <p>Also, you create unlikely scenarios.</p> <p>If anyone in the current top administration should ever be able to keep and hold a job in Academe (or in an analogous "industry") it will be because of the accoutrements they brought to their jobs here ... namely incompetence, Inexperience, lack of correct qualification, and other qualities important to the task.</p> <p> </p>
"The fault Dear Alums lies not in the stars but in ourselves." That appears to be your note of caution about criticisms of the regime that has grasped SVC firmly by the throat. My view of events is if and when JT or the Archabbot are ousted , it will be due to self inflicted wounds which have abounded over these trying years. The words of bloggers here have served to identify contentious issues and offer support to those who feel that this cabal has turned the institution into something unfamiliar and undesirable. Fear not Bearcat4ever, justice will be served .
<p>Like my Uncle Todd used to say, "50,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong."</p> <p>This forum has passed 535,000 page views in three years, 22,000 in just the last 12 days. At the beginning of September it had 302 members. Today it has 338. Tomorrow?</p> <p>The Aquiloaster Face Book Page today has more than 250 "friends," alums from the past and retired profs. Take note... perhaps 75% of the friends (that's today's figure) are undergraduates graduating from '10-'13.</p> <p>The students have started an underground newspaper called "ThoughtCrime..." It used to be spread about in hard copy around campus and/or inserted inside the Reviews. The Review editors in the last edition last year acknowledged that the Review and ThoughtCrime needed to exist side by side.</p> <p>The faculty in their two letters openly listed several of the critical matters posted in this forum by "cowardly" anonymous (sorry olga - pseudonymous posters).</p> <p>Resistance doesn't just happen... there's a reason for it...</p> <p>Seems to me there would need to be one hell of a lot of "libel" suing going on, eh, bearcat4ever.</p>
<p>BearCat4EvR, I need to make two points here.</p> <p>1. If anyone is deliberately provoking adminstrators, getting emails from them, and editing them on this site... I certainly will condemn them and remove their posts. I do not see proof that this happened as of yet. If administrators/supporters of Towey decide to email Aquiloaster or any other members, so be it. Their response is fair game in its original format.</p> <p>2. Norman Hipps is claiming that the VPAA search was legitimate since he served on the committee. I have TWO other very honorable members of that same committee that claim the search was hijacked by Towey (Grace) and Smetanka was forcibly added to the list of candidates in a "new list." I will let the lawyers and the judge sort that out when they sue the members of this website.... Joke!</p> <p>I have news for you. "BROTHER" Norman Hipps, O.S.B., is not telling the truth, Period.</p> <p>We certainly respect your opinions here on the forum and would like to see you stick around. If you choose not, that's your choice and you have that right.</p> <p>Svcalum</p>
OK, I am sorry for posting all of that before. I can go back and delete my comments if you want.
I've had a change of heart.
I spoke to someone yesterday who is more in the know about some of this stuff and I am quite shocked by how AWFUL the situation has become and it's clear there is no possibility for reconciliation.
SVC is in danger of becoming an AAUP censured institution. There is NO QUESTION in my mind about this, it just depends whether certain individuals decide to go down fighting or there is a complete change of leadership, including the leadership of the monastery.
The behavior of Douglas here is particularly appalling. It is in fact his poor leadership and poor vision that is fueling all of this. 2E is just a tool in a sick system, it is Douglas who should be the target of our complaints. 2E is a manifestation of a direction Douglas has been taking the college for years and now the snooldom has been exposed, and none other than by their own poor leadership.
I respect Norman Hipps, in fact, he impressed my father so much when I was in high school that he became one of the reasons I ended up at SVC. As a student I found him to be helpful. But yet again there is another administrator being forced to bend the truth to protect the hierarchy.
If there is not a change before or at the time of Towey's expiration of contract (which I believe is next year) there will be irrevocable consequences to the character of the institution.
I am also being aware that the talk of this site making a difference is not empty cheerleading. This site is making a difference, much more than I had imagined.
I do not know DeBroeck, Hipps or Smetanka's, did once upon a time know Champion, and I do not know others on the 'other side' whose names have been 'mentioned' on this forum. My information comes from this forum and from trusted people with close ties to SVC, so my knowledge, as my geographical location, is at a distance.
I accept that, to put it mildly, there are major concerns about and fears for SVC under the present administration. I do not accept that simply because someone disagrees with me (us) that they are inherently evil or bending what they know to be the truth for evil purposes.
I believe that Aquiloaster’s motivation was not hateful and his action not cowardly. I do not know the author but having read his letter and a bit of his history I believe the intention was not to tarnish but to help a beloved institution. And I believe that others who responded to his letter can rightfully disagree with some or even all of his statements but I do not believe he engaged in intentional lies, distortions - and there was certainly no evil.
However, I believe the same thing about the letters written in response to Aquiloaster. I believe they, like Aquiloaster, are good men who believe in what they are doing and are genuinely angry by what they see as baseless attacks on the administration, perhaps themselves and others in the SVC community.
That does not mean they are right, simply that they believe - as we do - they are. It seems quite clear that Michael DeBroeck believe in what he is saying. He appears to fully support and like the religion on campus and defends what he believes is the President's decision making responsibility. And as a parent he backs his beliefs with the power of the purse. That's it - and simply because he believes as he does it does not follow that he is evil, a toad of the administration or drinks the kool-aid.
So too Norman seems to be both angry about the accusations and genuinely concerned for the good of SVC while Smetanka is just angry - like many on this forum - but from the other side.
Now, for those who can't read or don't have friends to read for them (just kidding), this simple courtesy does not mean concurrence. I disagree with the present SVC administration on point after point but that does not give me the right - nor do I take the opportunity – to treat them as evil. I (we) do not agree with them and we have powerful arguments to counter their beliefs and statements. As an example, I believe Michael Yates clearly established that college governance differs in kind from the military hierarchy and decision-making.
Although I recognize the anonymous author or the use of a pseudo name in our culture I do not think we are on par with rebelling from England and creating a Republic and the righteous indignation over names/no names does not serve us well. Although Aquiloaster and others are correct that information needs no face for validation I believe it needs a name(s) to be heard and respected. I believe that for a letter to be considered – in a word to have any hope of having an impact – it must be a formal letter with identifiable authors. And it must be respectful - which says more about us than those we address. And respect for the other does seem to be paramount as we are concerned about a Catholic college.
I do need some clarification why anonymity is necessary in our letters. I understand the concerns of non-tenured faculty and administrators as I assume either could be fired or asked to not return to SVC. Plus, I assume that life could be made unpleasant for an individual tenured faculty member – that, in part, is why they signed their letter together. However should students be concerned? After all even DeBroek cites the history of student rebellion and disagreement with college administrators, "Virtually every student ever in college was dissatisfied with the administration’s style…" and I'm sure even he would stand by his child if he/she had a 'run-in' with the administrators, "Dad’s like me are paying the bills." And Hipps agrees, "we need to be a community where dissenting views are welcome, but aired with civility and collegially in appropriate forums." So students should have no concerns and we have Norman Hipps and Michael DeBroek, who by their own words, will be their advocates and protectors. And if “appropriate forums” is secret administrative code, we will have an answer to any attempt to control and thereby discourage dissent.
Finally, why should alumni need anonymity? What can the administration possibly do to them if they are no longer there? They have graduated, presumably gotten their letters of recommendation and it's over. How would their friends suffer because of their comments? And if their friends are students, we refer back to DeBroek and Hipps.
An alumni letter should be a community letter address to the greater SVC community.
I remain as of this writing since it is not a public letter,
<p>Welcome back from the Land of Doubt, Bearcat4Ever, welcome back. It was prudent of you to contact someone you know back at the Alma Mater. i can assure you, for every twenty different contacts you make you will get twenty identical replies... try fifty, try 100, try 150... the ratio will hardly vary. Many of the posters here are among the most respected of those associated with the college, either still there, recently departed, or long-time departed. No forum generates a half-millioin hits in less than three years if it is spouting empty, unfounded comments.</p> <p>The nice thing about truth and justice is this... they are admirably separated and distinct from law, law being an entity entirely malleable and open to all forms of application and interpretation. There is nothing worse in the world than the man or woman in power who says: "I did nothing illegal," a statement that often has nothing to do with ethics or morality.</p> <p>Truth and justice, though long in coming, are near at hand at SVC. The posters and creators of this forum have much more less to fear from the hand of law than those in the administration who condemn them.</p>
<p>Bearcar4EvR, thank you for contacting "someone in the know" to reinforce your thoughts. This site exists for a reason and as a co-founder of it, I can attest to that fact.</p> <p>Thor, there ARE members of this site deep in the "belly of the beast" so to speak. Revealing their identities would be detrimental to their careers at the hands of Towey and the Abbot. Most have devoted their lives to the College, Seminary, Abbey, and God respectively. There will come a time for ALL to reveal themselves. That time is slowly drawing near but in a completely different forum. The "evil" that some speak of here is something that happened to a member of the community and cannot be discussed in this arena. Trust me on this, it IS EVIL in the purest form. Please don't fail to miss the message while worrying about the identity of the messenger. Current students and recent graduates have much to lose when they reveal themselves and they might need a reference from the McKenna School, Boyer School, etc. Hopefully, you catch my drift.</p> <p>Thor, on a smaller scale we are rebelling against a self-imposed "king" at our Alma Mater. To me and many others here, the reputation of the college is severely at risk. I agree we should be respectful as much as possible. When the "king" uses unconventional tactics against his peasants, they must retaliate with uncoventional tactics. It has become a street-fight at this point and unfortunately, the heaviest and hardest hitting moves are made at this level. The good reputation of the college must kick the king in the nuts.</p> <p> Thor, with all due respect to your concerns about "anonymous" names on this site, is "THOR" your real name? Your parents must have hated you or studied too much Germanic mythology! :-)</p>
I have always understood that a number of members are deep in the "belly of the beast" and that presumably identities must be veiled, including it seems some (all?) students and recent graduates.
But this leads to another question: who is left? Isn’t the answer those alums that have moved ‘out into the world’ and are no longer in need of any future considerations from SVC?
I actually don't care about the identity of those in the forum. My concern is more about the effectiveness of an alumni letter(s): such public letters need a name(s) to be respected or have any hope of making a difference. Given the sheer number of our members, isn’t there still a significant group, “the ones who are left,” who could sign an alumni letter without fear? However, let me add that if indeed there is "a completely different forum" and an alumni letter would not serve the greater good at this time, then I defer.
I do understand some of the 'evil' from my trusted sources but I don't agree that all who support the SVC President are evil, stupid and on and on. I just read a summer post naming certain people on the top 10 list of supporters of the SVC President. Now I don't know all, I don't know many but I do know of one and I wonder why the same concern for faculty, current students and recent grads doesn't seem to be extended to one, a few, perhaps more than a few in the administration that also live in fear and can't afford to go public. The problem with fighting ‘evil’ is all too often it is assumed that everybody who has a different opinion is evil. Presumably just like some in the SVC administration and its supporters believe about members of the alumni forum.
Just as I take what many in the forum say on face value – not knowing them personally or even who they are - so too I take, for example, Michael DeBroek‘s letter as sincere. He, as Brother Norman, seemingly believes what he writes (like us) and simply because I disagree with him doesn’t make him evil.
As for the name, my Irish parents gave me a name that contains the saint who saved what was referred to as the old country. As for Thor - I read a lot of comic book when I was a kid but I never use it when I write a formal letter. How about your name - was it foretold at your birth that you would graduate from SVC?
<p>As far as anonymity goes.. check out hte aquiloaster otr facebook page with its 250+ members... hardly anonymous... and loads of SVC undergraduates.</p>
Well, I gotta say, I took the anonymous route that many on here have taken for fear of reprisals, not for myself but for acquaintances who are very closely tied to me. When the time was right, I wrote to the Board of Directors with a detailed question of the philosophy of the school and the worrisome direction HJT was taking things. To which I was not even dignified a response from the board but a form letter from Don Orlando (!) thanking me for my 'mutual concern' about the college. NO ONE in the HJT administration pays any attention! (I know big surprise.) So, I feel much of my anonymous posting here, as well as other things done without my name, have been more helpful than when I stepped up under my own name--that didn't get me anywhere.
You bring a valid point to light. I wrote a three letters over time and each was copied to several people on campus, mostly administration, some Benedictines and a few board members. To everyone I mailed I also e-mailed so there would be an easier response avenue. My letters were by far shorter, tamer and asked simpler questions than Aquiloasters' post. I never heard back from anyone.
I did get the boilerplate letter from alumni relations that was sent out around the time the Bush visit was drawing heat.
There must be some reason that Aquiloaster, while anonymous, drew swift responses from at least three on campus. Perhaps they find it easier answering someone unkown, maybe it's less threatening for them to respond to a nameless, and faceless alum.
For what it's worth the snub I experienced was not business as usual. In the past as Chairman of an advisory Board for a local Catholic school I had written to Archabbot a few times asking occasionally for guidance, or making requests on behalf of the school. On those occasions I always received a swift and handwritten reply from Douglas. Perhaps the subject matter was simply less sensitive and easier to respond to. On these occasions I copied no one, simply sent mail directly to Douglas and was eager to share his correspondence with the rest of our development team. Replies were always gracious and written in a such way that I knew my original content had been read and considered.
We'll return to those days at some point I am certain. Until then whatever alumni do, anonymous or not, to voice their concerns, heap their praise, or even question administration can only serve to let the college know that its alumni community, built over many years, is an interested and engaged one.
<p>The matter of letter writing and no response or boiler plate response is a matter of normacy. Towey, or Grace, or Towey's hired PR consultant (Trent Duffy, still?) have been known (and this is attested to by recently departed members of the admin) to write letters of response and then have others sign them. Orlando is the most current mouthpiece. Someday, when he is shaving in front of his mirror waiting the postman to deliver his SS and retirement checks, he still won't be able to look at himself. The same can be said for others. True, SVC will return to normal, someday. But some people will be remembered, vividly.</p> <p>Perhaps Orlando needs the job, and can therefore be offered some measure of understanding and forgiveness. But there were others who had ended long careers and had virtually nothing to lose for speaking out. One can go to great lengths to protect a beloved institution, but even great lengths extend only so far.</p>
I know you are much closer to your undergraduate days than I, but it may be wise to consider the many duties some have in the Abby. The abbot must consider the monastery, the parish, the church in general and the college as well as many priories, missions and additional duties. Of course SVC is our concern, but sometimes as I read these submissions I am reminded of my sons and grandson: "Daddy, Daddy, look at me!" "Grandpa, Gimme my book." We always think our hobbyhorse is the finest in the race, but a bit of charity might be in order. As I look at the national political scene, I see how the "Bush baiting" is becoming "Obama hating." Civil discussion is an absolute necessity. Our political positions should not dictate our concern for this great institution. At other places in this forum, I have spoken of the problem of imposing any orthodoxy (political, religious and even moral) upon others. I am not urging forgetting, but how about some forgiving? Then we might all be able to contribute. We all have busy lives with many priorities, and Daddy cannot always rush to look at big frogs.
I think that some of the reason responses are happening is because the administration is beginning to unravel and they know that this site and the large numbers of ticked alumni/ae are becoming a concern. And they know that simply denying the truth of what's going on isn't convincing anyone, but the denials are indicative of a culture where denial and fibbing are not only expected, but orderd by the top of the food chain.
In fact, it was precisely this--the demand of an administrator to outrightly lie at a faculty meeting--that prompted the writing of that faculty letter, right?
Sado-systems protect the snools in charge by ritually re-enacting the lies. This is more than simply fibbing, it is protecting the sado-structure that demands fear, necrophila (lusting for death, as in the case of Towey's extracurricular activities), and complacency and apathy from those who are beneath the heirarchy. Br. Norman, Dr. Smetanka, and others: you are guilty of dickspeaking, even if the truth seems true within the cages hung for you by those in charge. Archabbot Douglas is suspiciously Jesuitical, no?
I don't have a clue what you said but yes, the faculty letter, if memory serves, was provoked by the incident to which you are referring. --And the feeling that this administrator might be asked for her resignation.
<p>Herr Buzzard: What you say may be true, if I understand you correctly... BUT... it would be a great thing if the Abbot paid attention to other matters. He's as an inveterate micro-manager as is Towey. The college in the past has run quite well without the constant inteference and overriding of governance committees.</p> <p>And forgive.. there are things occurring at this moment that will never see the light of day on this forum, and they are absolutely unforgivable things. To hell with forgiving these.</p> <p>And, civil discourse is an excellently wonderful thing in a civil environment. Trouble is, on the SVC campus, "civil discourse" is called for most by those who themselves do not practice it. So to hell with civil discourse.</p> <p>As the noble Machiavelli tellsus, if your adversary faces you goodly and honestly, face him back the same... if he plays unfairly, then respond in kind. The days of civil discourse died on the SVC Campus in July 2006. </p>