The Mail

Collective censure: correct English and custom

To the Editor:

It is amusing to observe how an administration, which never tires of blaming Albany, suddenly finds fault when their own administration is taken to task as a collective: "This flies in the face of any notion of fairness or due process" they aver with a straight face.

On previous occasions, some quite recent, where I did name names, I was accused of ad hominem attacks-and even when I left out names and challenged specific offices, the administration complained publicly about my (lack of) civility.

It is both correct English and established custom to censure or express no confidence in bodies, be they football teams, courts or whatever. Professor Malone, in the very same meeting where he calls censuring the administration "an absolutely silly thing to do," expresses himself in favor of a motion of no confidence in the Board of Trustees.

To be sure, not all administrators are equally involved in the statistics disaster, just as not all players on a losing team are equally culpable in defeat. Yet, the team is blamed, in screaming headlines, as a collective.

The administration, while imploring us to talk substance and on the merits (rather than process and personalities), is itself quick to conjure up specious linguistic inanities to avoid talking turkey (as well as quick to levy accusations against Professor Nickerson, which are wildly off base.)

Recently, boxer Tyson was accused of being a "rapist recluse." This angered him because, he said, he was not a recluse. Here we have a motion that the administration be censured, which angers them because, they say, there is no administration to be censured. The censure itself, by their comments, would be "an honor."

Meanwhile, I do want to commend the administration on forming a supercomputing center-well done!