To the Editor:
While I strongly disagree with most of the allegations made by Andrew Ivers in his Nov. 2 letter to the editor, my purpose in writing this letter is to object to the specific form Mr. Ivers’ allegations take and, in turn, to issue a plea for civil discourse.
I was distressed, while reading Mr. Ivers’ text, to see him appealing to Jesuit values and touting the need for “civil disagreement” while simultaneously crafting profoundly uncivil sentences. How, for example, can the clause “we have liars running what is arguably the most important undertaking of the University” be understood to constitute civil discourse? What about “Baworowsky and Lyons lied to us”? Or, leaving aside the fact that the President never spoke with Mr. Ivers about the matter he finds so objectionable, and therefore couldn’t have lied about it, “Biondi lied to us as well”?
The name calling continues. Wrapping himself in the self-proclaimed mantle of his “professionalism,” Mr. Ivers goes on to accuse another of the University’s vice presidents of “neglect,” and a long series of additional/ad hominem/slurs, ranging from malice and deception to pettiness and delusion, follows. Then, just when one hopes the writer’s spitefulness may have peaked, Mr. Ivers trots out a stunningly insensitive metaphor, describing an administrative action as “the equivalent of breaking the knee caps of these student groups.” Such remarks cannot be understood to reflect any standard of “professionalism” I recognize, nor do they exemplify “civil disagreement.”
Sadly, name calling doesn’t constitute the outer limit of incivility for Mr. Ivers, who goes a step further, declaring self-righteously that “you must punish Biondi and Baworowsky and Lyons for their inexcusable behavior.” Mr. Ivers certainly has the right to voice his disagreement with any number of things, but why, we might ask, does he not realize that, at this point in his letter, he is grossly and inappropriately overstepping his bounds, and that his smug, and decidedly mean-spirited, behavior is itself inexcusable? An especially cruel irony here is that Mr. Ivers, later in the same paragraph, assumes the role of standard bearer for the Jesuit tradition, even as he refuses to accept the responsibility of acting civilly as a member of our university community.
I am also forced to ask why the editorial decision was made to highlight two of Mr. Ivers’ nastiest sentences in large-font type – a decision which seems to bespeak a second-level lapse of sound judgment.
The Jesuit tradition embraces rational argumentation and honest disagreement. But it does not embrace personal attacks. Let us feel free to express our differences, but let us do so in ways that respect the value of community and exhibit care for the persons with whom we interact.

Joe Weixlmann
Provost