I’d like to make a plea to those most engaged with the debate over the leadership crisis at SLU. Perhaps in some instances over the last several months, those advancing criticisms of the upper administration and the board of trustees have stepped over lines of civility and fairness. However, recent public responses to such criticisms, it seems, have not engaged the substance of the arguments, but rather all too often have aimed at stifling the very debate itself.
Faculty like Dr. Ken Parker, who has written here recently calling for greater integrity and fidelity to the mission, have done a great service to the University by modeling the art of civil discourse. Even if one disagrees with the perspectives of another, the ability and willingness to articulate these perspectives for the consideration of the whole community is crucial for our well-being. Indeed, too many times things have been said in the public arena that amount to the weakest of arguments and the most damaging for a community of higher learning, especially- the ad hominem.
Rather than dealing with the substance of critiques being made legitimately by thoughtful people, some have resorted to personal attacks against the critics, calling them “whiners,” etc. To tell critics that if they don’t like it here, they should go look for work elsewhere is an especially chilling and irresponsible act in a university community. It is my sincere hope that this crisis is resolved soon, but even if it continues to be dragged out, I hope we can try to be more civil in our discourse, deal with the matters at hand and leave in the past the personal attacks and dismissiveness of those with whom we disagree.