Spring Break
Questionable task force
The only "good intentions" of this group is for public relations purposes
The Daily Campus Ed Board
Issue date: 7/2/07 Section: Opinion
The task force, recently enlisted by President R. Gerald Turner, is a joke.
Not only is it going to take till December for the task force to come up with anything, but it is comprised of representatives of some of the groups it should be investigating.
What a crock!
Don't misunderstand our message...if the task force actually produces real results it will be great, but how are we supposed to expect this group of people to incriminate themselves?
President Turner reportedly signed off on each of the members that joined the panel.
Does Turner really expect the presidents of IFC and Panhellenic to be forthcoming about the flaws in the Greeks system? Why would the two Greek leaders want to highlight the shortcomings of their own system and bring down their friends?
They have no incentive do so.
It doesn't make them bad people, it simply makes them human.
The two people heading up the panel are just as questionable.
Dee Siscoe is the Dean of Student Life. Her office handles all incidents on campus, including the drug-related deaths.
She is essentially investigating herself.
Again, what incentive is there to do anything other than accept the status quo?
Tom Tunks gained notoriety in this paper during the spring for doing the university's bidding by shutting down a faculty revolt about the Bush library at a contentious Faculty Senate meeting before Spring Break. The group was set to push through a strongly worded resolution that would have made it hard for the Bush library complex to come to campus until Tunks came into the meeting and said to those in attendance there would be dire consequences if their plan was passed.
Our favorite person on the panel is SMU's Executive Director of Public Affairs Patti LaSalle. Surely she must know that it looks bad that a drug task force set to investigate high-profile incidents on campus has the school's head PR person on it.
It is not so much the people themselves that are the problem, but the positions they hold that inconvenience the investigation at hand. We find it hard to believe that most of the members of the task force will have any incentive to produce a real report because they would just end up indicting themselves.
We hope we are wrong; we hope the task force actually lives up to its job; and most of all we hope it is not simply a publicity stunt SMU is using to answer the many critical questions being thrown its way.
But it sure doesn't seem that way.
Not only is it going to take till December for the task force to come up with anything, but it is comprised of representatives of some of the groups it should be investigating.
What a crock!
Don't misunderstand our message...if the task force actually produces real results it will be great, but how are we supposed to expect this group of people to incriminate themselves?
President Turner reportedly signed off on each of the members that joined the panel.
Does Turner really expect the presidents of IFC and Panhellenic to be forthcoming about the flaws in the Greeks system? Why would the two Greek leaders want to highlight the shortcomings of their own system and bring down their friends?
They have no incentive do so.
It doesn't make them bad people, it simply makes them human.
The two people heading up the panel are just as questionable.
Dee Siscoe is the Dean of Student Life. Her office handles all incidents on campus, including the drug-related deaths.
She is essentially investigating herself.
Again, what incentive is there to do anything other than accept the status quo?
Tom Tunks gained notoriety in this paper during the spring for doing the university's bidding by shutting down a faculty revolt about the Bush library at a contentious Faculty Senate meeting before Spring Break. The group was set to push through a strongly worded resolution that would have made it hard for the Bush library complex to come to campus until Tunks came into the meeting and said to those in attendance there would be dire consequences if their plan was passed.
Our favorite person on the panel is SMU's Executive Director of Public Affairs Patti LaSalle. Surely she must know that it looks bad that a drug task force set to investigate high-profile incidents on campus has the school's head PR person on it.
It is not so much the people themselves that are the problem, but the positions they hold that inconvenience the investigation at hand. We find it hard to believe that most of the members of the task force will have any incentive to produce a real report because they would just end up indicting themselves.
We hope we are wrong; we hope the task force actually lives up to its job; and most of all we hope it is not simply a publicity stunt SMU is using to answer the many critical questions being thrown its way.
But it sure doesn't seem that way.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Andrew Baker
posted 7/05/07 @ 8:13 PM EST
So, Ed Board, whom would you recommend for the task force? It is quite easy to say why someone shouldn't be on the task force (although I disagree with your position), but I'd like to see the Ed Board be pro-active on this and propose some alternates. (Continued…)
Post a Comment