|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Sept 16, 2020 11:22:52 GMT -5
If you don't like what they're doing get on the next board meeting agenda or schedule an appointment with her and air your grievances in person instead of doing something infantile like using your byline like a child throwing a tantrum. If you remember last week I solicited ideas on here for a meeting with the Dean. The chair of the advisory board I'm on presented last week to the Dean and we are working our way up the chain of command now - we were told we cannot just schedule with her...it has to go through Dean, then the Provost, then to her. I'm hoping we get the opportunity to present. There were ideas we formulated around reopening, 4-year tuition locks, tuition resets, etc that resonated with the Dean and would be good from an admissions and PR standpoint. Why the BoT and the President's Advisory Council isn't offering up these ideas is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by calsufan on Sept 16, 2020 11:28:26 GMT -5
If you don't like what they're doing get on the next board meeting agenda or schedule an appointment with her and air your grievances in person instead of doing something infantile like using your byline like a child throwing a tantrum. If you remember last week I solicited ideas on here for a meeting with the Dean. The chair of the advisory board I'm on presented last week to the Dean and we are working our way up the chain of command now - we were told we cannot just schedule with her...it has to go through Dean, then the Provost, then to her. I'm hoping we get the opportunity to present. There were ideas we formulated around reopening, 4-year tuition locks, tuition resets, etc that resonated with the Dean and would be good from an admissions and PR standpoint. Why the BoT and the President's Advisory Council isn't offering up these ideas is beyond me. Good for you. That's a positive. I hope your group has the same level of expertise as I'm sure the board reached out to. If they're equally informed decisions that's great and can foster real debate. If it's not and it's more opinion based then things won't go as well. At the end of the day. she still has my confidence. And I still think you should take your byline down especially since you are probably going to get a chance to talk with her. Are you going to tell her to her face that it was a cowardly administrative failure in just those words if you do get to speak to her directly?
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,392
Likes: 6,325
|
Post by MisterD on Sept 16, 2020 11:50:26 GMT -5
When one factor is death, I do tend to get tunnel-vision. Guilty as charged.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Sept 16, 2020 12:02:03 GMT -5
If you remember last week I solicited ideas on here for a meeting with the Dean. The chair of the advisory board I'm on presented last week to the Dean and we are working our way up the chain of command now - we were told we cannot just schedule with her...it has to go through Dean, then the Provost, then to her. I'm hoping we get the opportunity to present. There were ideas we formulated around reopening, 4-year tuition locks, tuition resets, etc that resonated with the Dean and would be good from an admissions and PR standpoint. Why the BoT and the President's Advisory Council isn't offering up these ideas is beyond me. Good for you. That's a positive. I hope your group has the same level of expertise as I'm sure the board reached out to. If they're equally informed decisions that's great and can foster real debate. If it's not and it's more opinion based then things won't go as well. At the end of the day. she still has my confidence. And I still think you should take your byline down especially since you are probably going to get a chance to talk with her. Are you going to tell her to her face that it was a cowardly administrative failure in just those words if you do get to speak to her directly? I would say that directly...yes...especially given the stated rationale in the email announcing the closure. I'm generally very direct and in my time on the Alumni Board was not shy about being direct with members of the administration. My understanding was that it was a hastily made decision that did not involve getting input from the planning committee that had been working for months and months on the issues. (You're assuming she reached out to a board on this when that wasn't stated anywhere). If they open in January and there is no vaccine, I would love to know "what changed" from La Salle being able to safely open in August versus January. Did she just not put the right level of oversight over planning and didn't have confidence in the school's ability to handle cases? Some of the peer schools seemed capable of it a month+ into the semester.
|
|
|
Post by victoriouslasalle on Sept 16, 2020 12:13:06 GMT -5
This whole thing is just an exercise in "_______ University now has 300 positive cases" versus "can you prove there wouldn't be 301 if students were home???" Mr D (and others of a like-mind), looking to get a clearer sense of your view on this. Is there containment criteria if met by outcomes that could work for you, that you could sign on to for opening up and maintaining? Is it we are just not there for you? If so, what (roughly) do you need in this regard to gain your approval (approach and parameters) ? What will it take? Not being snarky here.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,392
Likes: 6,325
|
Post by MisterD on Sept 16, 2020 12:13:46 GMT -5
If they open in January and there is no vaccine, I would love to know "what changed" from La Salle being able to safely open in August versus January. Did she just not put the right level of oversight over planning and didn't have confidence in the school's ability to handle cases? Some of the peer schools seemed capable of it a month+ into the semester. Maybe the only thing that would change, in your hypothetical, would be their ability to resist loud capitalist shitheads?
|
|
|
Post by calsufan on Sept 16, 2020 12:22:03 GMT -5
Good for you. That's a positive. I hope your group has the same level of expertise as I'm sure the board reached out to. If they're equally informed decisions that's great and can foster real debate. If it's not and it's more opinion based then things won't go as well. At the end of the day. she still has my confidence. And I still think you should take your byline down especially since you are probably going to get a chance to talk with her. Are you going to tell her to her face that it was a cowardly administrative failure in just those words if you do get to speak to her directly? I would say that directly...yes...especially given the stated rationale in the email announcing the closure. I'm generally very direct and in my time on the Alumni Board was not shy about being direct with members of the administration. My understanding was that it was a hastily made decision that did not involve getting input from the planning committee that had been working for months and months on the issues. ( You're assuming she reached out to a board on this when that wasn't stated anywhere). If they open in January and there is no vaccine, I would love to know "what changed" from La Salle being able to safely open in August versus January. Did she just not put the right level of oversight over planning and didn't have confidence in the school's ability to handle cases? Some of the peer schools seemed capable of it a month+ into the semester. Which board are you speaking about? The BOT?
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,392
Likes: 6,325
|
Post by MisterD on Sept 16, 2020 12:28:47 GMT -5
Is there containment criteria if met by outcomes that could work for you, that you could sign on to for opening up and maintaining? Is it we are just not there for you? If so, what (roughly) do you need in this regard to gain your approval (approach and parameters) ? What will it take? Not being snarky here. No, that's a fair question. I don't think anyone should (explicitly or implicitly) be put at risk beyond their own personal acceptance level, especially for non-essential reasons. If masks were 99.99% effective at protecting the wearer, I would be far more on the side of opening things back up, but we're not there or close. To me, its not so much a question of transmission mitigation or an infection rate threshold, its about reaching a point where the individual is able to protect themselves and the immunocompromised are the ones granted remote exemptions or disability protections.
|
|
|
Post by las71 on Sept 16, 2020 14:04:02 GMT -5
Will the moderators please consider locking this thred? We have 5 or 6 people arguing back and forth posting the same arguments. Wouldn't normally care but criticism of our President and alma mater serves no useful purpose at this point. We understand that enrollment is down and I fail to see how the criticism of La Salle by posters is helpful. These are difficult times for small schools like ours made more complicated by the Covid virus. What purpose does it serve posting about how well Villanova and Duquesne have done on this board. I suspect our President and BOT are following all comparable schools and are well aware of these schools. Praising them on this board serves no purpose but to make La Salle look bad. Some schools opened their campuses and some did not. If the decision was so clear than all schools would either be open or closed. It was a complicated decision but I choose to believe it was made in good faith. At times like this, La Salle needs our support.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Sept 16, 2020 14:36:23 GMT -5
If they open in January and there is no vaccine, I would love to know "what changed" from La Salle being able to safely open in August versus January. Did she just not put the right level of oversight over planning and didn't have confidence in the school's ability to handle cases? Some of the peer schools seemed capable of it a month+ into the semester. Maybe the only thing that would change, in your hypothetical, would be their ability to resist loud capitalist shitheads? That's your serious answer to the question? You're blaming capitalism. That's a heck of a dodge. It's a very real scenario. CCP announced this week they will be virtual for the spring semester. If La Salle opens, and nothing has changed from a vaccine standpoint, and you're whole goal is safety (to 99.99% effectiveness as you stated), would you feel they made an incorrect decision in opening in the spring?
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,392
Likes: 6,325
|
Post by MisterD on Sept 16, 2020 15:14:21 GMT -5
If La Salle opens, and nothing has changed from a vaccine standpoint, and you're whole goal is safety (to 99.99% effectiveness as you stated), would you feel they made an incorrect decision in opening in the spring? 1. That's not really what I stated. I said my overarching concern is that anyone who wants to stay safe is able to. I gave the hypothetical of masks protecting the wearer and of course a vaccine would apply. Even instant testing before anyone enters a building would be a massive game changer. If nothing (scientific advancements, positive knowledge about transmission, etc) has changed by January versus where we stand now, I can't imagine me having a different opinion. 2. "Your", not "you're".
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Sept 16, 2020 16:09:20 GMT -5
If La Salle opens, and nothing has changed from a vaccine standpoint, and you're whole goal is safety (to 99.99% effectiveness as you stated), would you feel they made an incorrect decision in opening in the spring? 1. That's not really what I stated. I said my overarching concern is that anyone who wants to stay safe is able to. I gave the hypothetical of masks protecting the wearer and of course a vaccine would apply. Even instant testing before anyone enters a building would be a massive game changer. If nothing (scientific advancements, positive knowledge about transmission, etc) has changed by January versus where we stand now, I can't imagine me having a different opinion. 2. "Your", not "you're". 1. But anyone who wants to stay safe can. Accommodations were made at most schools for people to teach or take classes from home if they so chose. But you can't do that for labs or clinicals. I suppose a tricorder-like device would be awesome, but until then, shutting in-person stuff down just isn't tenable. Even with a vaccine you are likely talking another year for full distribution of it. There are improvements in treatment options happening almost weekly, and hospital systems are adjusting protocols accordingly as new data comes out (a study is about to be published of a Lilly drug for RA that showed effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations with COVID), but these are treatments, not cures. Until then, it sounds like your risk tolerance is to completely have zero risk at the school...even though the school being closed creates other risks. Interestingly, the Director of the CDC said today that masks might offer more protection than a vaccine, and no one would claim full protection with any vaccine. Scientists say 60% would be a good start. “I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine,” Redfield added. “Because the immunogenicity may be 70%, and if I don’t get an immune response, the vaccine’s not going to protect me. This face will."2. Dammit. I hate when I make that error typing quickly. I gave you a "like" for that.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,392
Likes: 6,325
|
Post by MisterD on Sept 16, 2020 16:25:34 GMT -5
Feels like sentences 1 and 2 are solidly countered by the next few. Not sure if I need to add anything?
|
|
|
Post by belfieldhappyhour on Sept 16, 2020 17:03:29 GMT -5
Will the moderators please consider locking this thred? We have 5 or 6 people arguing back and forth posting the same arguments. Wouldn't normally care but criticism of our President and alma mater serves no useful purpose at this point. We understand that enrollment is down and I fail to see how the criticism of La Salle by posters is helpful. These are difficult times for small schools like ours made more complicated by the Covid virus. What purpose does it serve posting about how well Villanova and Duquesne have done on this board. I suspect our President and BOT are following all comparable schools and are well aware of these schools. Praising them on this board serves no purpose but to make La Salle look bad. Some schools opened their campuses and some did not. If the decision was so clear than all schools would either be open or closed. It was a complicated decision but I choose to believe it was made in good faith. At times like this, La Salle needs our support. AMEN!!! Or cut the last 3 or 4 pages and move it to the other discussion board. This pissing match is long past the point of having anything to do with the title of the thread.
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on Sept 16, 2020 17:06:32 GMT -5
Will the moderators please consider locking this thred? We have 5 or 6 people arguing back and forth posting the same arguments. Wouldn't normally care but criticism of our President and alma mater serves no useful purpose at this point. We understand that enrollment is down and I fail to see how the criticism of La Salle by posters is helpful. These are difficult times for small schools like ours made more complicated by the Covid virus. What purpose does it serve posting about how well Villanova and Duquesne have done on this board. I suspect our President and BOT are following all comparable schools and are well aware of these schools. Praising them on this board serves no purpose but to make La Salle look bad. Some schools opened their campuses and some did not. If the decision was so clear than all schools would either be open or closed. It was a complicated decision but I choose to believe it was made in good faith. At times like this, La Salle needs our support. AMEN!!! Or cut the last 3 or 4 pages and move it to the other discussion board. This pissing match is long past the point of having anything to do with the title of the thread. We’re talking about it as moderators right now. It’ll be moved or locked or a combination of both this evening. We gave everyone ample time to make their points and now it’s past the point to just going round and round.
|
|
|
Post by calsufan on Sept 16, 2020 17:18:29 GMT -5
AMEN!!! Or cut the last 3 or 4 pages and move it to the other discussion board. This pissing match is long past the point of having anything to do with the title of the thread. We’re talking about it as moderators right now. It’ll be moved or locked or a combination of both this evening. We gave everyone ample time to make their points and now it’s past the point to just going round and round. Let me also add to what theneumann64 said. Once it's locked, that's it. I do not want to see this leak into other threads or have an entirely new thread created. Everyone's put more than their 2 cents in on this topic. Thank you for understanding. And if you don't understand, well then, it's happening regardless.
|
|
|
Post by victoriouslasalle on Sept 17, 2020 7:13:28 GMT -5
Is there containment criteria if met by outcomes that could work for you, that you could sign on to for opening up and maintaining? Is it we are just not there for you? If so, what (roughly) do you need in this regard to gain your approval (approach and parameters) ? What will it take? Not being snarky here. No, that's a fair question. I don't think anyone should (explicitly or implicitly) be put at risk beyond their own personal acceptance level, especially for non-essential reasons. If masks were 99.99% effective at protecting the wearer, I would be far more on the side of opening things back up, but we're not there or close. To me, its not so much a question of transmission mitigation or an infection rate threshold, its about reaching a point where the individual is able to protect themselves and the immunocompromised are the ones granted remote exemptions or disability protections. Thanks for responding to my question. It looks like we may agree about the importance regarding the nationwide employment of masks. My ideal falls a bit short of yours I think. I would have been satisfied with a national effort to put N95 masks in the hands of all citizens and a nationally led effort to enforce their usage. Perhaps encouraging enforcement of disease safety behavior in the ways we regulate driving behavior. I, and members of my immediate family all have medical issues that likely make this a deadly disease for us should we contract the disease. Being aware of this, mask wearing is notably important to us (to be worn by us and others). I could choose not to go to the supermarket but I go and to other stores employing an N95 mask. I am willing to assume that risk. But, it is very troubling to me that despite messages over loud speakers that masks are required 5-10% of folks will not comply in my area of the world. I am pleased to say this an improvement from what i would estimate as 30 % in July. Given the science that supports the value of wearing masks I would favor these non-wearers being fined. My view is that government has a responsibility to protect people and I expect government to enforce this like you would driving safety breaches that threaten others (given the threat of this disease). Among several other things (social distancing, testing, contact tracing etc.) the medical experts have indicated masks are extremely important. I think we likely agree that national government's effort to promote the effective employment of masks to protect people has been poor. In general, the statistics are showing that in other countries where superior efforts to ours have taken place they are faring much better with this disease which includes opening up their countries. I am reminded of one of my mother's pet sayings, "half-assed efforts lead to half-assed results".
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Sept 17, 2020 11:44:34 GMT -5
Editorial this week's Collegian... drive.google.com/file/d/1YR4Klrr7xWWIbnn-_cVQ3BvqeSgHAc1c/viewLa Salle’s decision to close residence halls for the Fall 2020 semester prevented most students from returning to campus, but made exceptions for some. Among those invited to return to campus were nursing students, individuals requiring emergency housing, international students and athletes. The La Salle Athletic Association has continued to host practices for student athletes, bringing a sizable number of students to campus. If proper social distancing procedures were being followed and adequate testing were provided, the decision would be perfectly understandable and acceptable. However, not all those returning to campus are following the rules, and the student athletes are not only posing a threat to other members of the La Salle community, but also the community at large.
While a large portion of the threat lies within the athletic community, they are not the only offenders. Students living in housing around La Salle have been bringing their off-campus friends, family and significant others to campus. Although some interaction between on-campus students and students with off-campus housing should be expected, La Salle’s campus visitors have come from all over; some campus residents are inviting friends from multiple states away to visit. Between the students permitted to be on-campus, their presumably unauthorized visitors and the off-campus population, La Salle students are potentially creating a tangible problem.
From Greek organizations to sports teams to members of the Residence Life staff, students are hosting large gatherings, often without face coverings or proper social distancing. The parties are not atypical for normal La Salle student life but are reckless and irresponsible given the current climate. Unfortunately, the University is overwhelmingly failing to address the issue. Not only is La Salle not providing testing for athletes, but due to the threat of disciplinary action, many students are not reporting when they contract COVID-19, which leaves students and community members at an elevated risk.
As of Sept. 11, the university’s COVID-19 Dashboard has only reported 3 positive cases among students with a campus presence. But individuals who are living at La Salle believe the number is much higher, claiming entire athletic teams have contracted COVID-19 and are rapidly spreading the virus to other students. Even more concerning, the unsanctioned campus visitors are potentially taking COVID-19 back to their family and friends at home. While most of the cases seem to be isolated within Wister Court, the threat to students and community members should be taken seriously. Despite these concerns, the University has not taken action or addressed the issue.
While students also ought to take responsibility for their actions, on a structural level, the University has an obligation to address this problem by, at the least, providing COVID-19 testing for the athletic teams on campus. The university community and surrounding neighborhood would benefit greatly from taking action on this issue to prevent the spread of this terrible virus. While it may seem that, because this semester is virtual, our campus is empty, a community of students nonetheless populates 20th and Olney, and La Salle ought to acknowledge their presence.
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Sept 17, 2020 12:11:18 GMT -5
So while this piece places blame on the school, it sure seems to me that not bringing everyone back on campus was a correct decision because, as you read above, college kids are gonna college kid.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Sept 17, 2020 12:27:08 GMT -5
So while this piece places blame on the school, it sure seems to me that not bringing everyone back on campus was a correct decision because, as you read above, college kids are gonna college kid. Disagree (what a surprise). If they have athletes on campus...or any students for that matter...don't they have an obligation to test? Don't they have an obligation to enforce residence hall visits? Yeah..that's on the students...but as victorious said in his post right before this...some policing by those in charge has to happen with penalties. But if they are allowed to sign of-campus people into residence halls, that's a La Salle issue. That should be forbidden. With fewer people on campus, it should be easier to police, not harder. The article mentions 3 students, but the dashboard (last updated 9/11) says 5 since august (https://www.lasalle.edu/news/covid-19/). Not to keep bringing up Duquesne...but...they've had 10 since August (as of 9/15) and are fully back and doing random testing. I'm not sure I buy the claim in the article that whole teams have had it, but without testing, who knows.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,392
Likes: 6,325
|
Post by MisterD on Sept 17, 2020 12:33:42 GMT -5
And Sturgis attendees are gonna Sturgis attendee, Florida Marlins are gonna Florida Marlin, certain rally-goers are gonna rally-go ...
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,392
Likes: 6,325
|
Post by MisterD on Sept 17, 2020 12:40:42 GMT -5
If they have athletes on campus...or any students for that matter...don't they have an obligation to test? Don't they have an obligation to enforce residence hall visits? Yeah..that's on the students...but as victorious said in his post right before this...some policing by those in charge has to happen with penalties. But if they are allowed to sign of-campus people into residence halls, that's a La Salle issue. That should be forbidden. With fewer people on campus, it should be easier to police, not harder. I agree, but this only solves for half of the equation. While you might be able to prevent having outsiders bring it in, insiders still can and will. And not in the typical "we blame irresponsible students attending an off-campus party" excuse, but students grocery shopping or working a part-time job or all of the staff that go come and go every day? Which gets back to my original point that unless you have instant-testing or a vaccine, leadership taking an active role in prevention is just eye-wash because active prevention of a large and mobile group is currently impossible.
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on Sept 17, 2020 12:59:35 GMT -5
If they have athletes on campus...or any students for that matter...don't they have an obligation to test? Don't they have an obligation to enforce residence hall visits? Yeah..that's on the students...but as victorious said in his post right before this...some policing by those in charge has to happen with penalties. But if they are allowed to sign of-campus people into residence halls, that's a La Salle issue. That should be forbidden. With fewer people on campus, it should be easier to police, not harder. And not in the typical "we blame irresponsible students attending an off-campus party" excuse, but students grocery shopping or working a part-time job or all of the staff that go come and go every day? Just a side note on this- Army's football game this weekend was canceled due to positive tests within the program of their scheduled opponents: BYU. You know those kids weren't getting it from packed off-campus ragers.
|
|
|
Post by hykos1045 on Sept 17, 2020 14:02:54 GMT -5
The Collegian piece seems too dependent on anecdotal evidence. How can the editors from their virtual perch be sure that no action on campus is being taken, while entire teams, though sources are sketched over, have contracted COVID? It all seems like hearsay. None of it seems to offer a solution other than that we should be testing more. And if we're not already testing sufficiently, then how is the editor so sure that COVID has already had a major breach? We rely on university communications and dashboards which are backward looking, so of course they won't portray the current threat exactly. If contact tracing results in teams having to quarantine because of potential exposure, that's way different than entire teams testing positive, which doesn't make sense given the author's viewpoint that testing has not been mandatory. That's why I assume the editors didn't possibly get all of the facts right from the anecdotes they pieced together.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Sept 18, 2020 15:02:48 GMT -5
The Collegian piece seems too dependent on anecdotal evidence. How can the editors from their virtual perch be sure that no action on campus is being taken, while entire teams, though sources are sketched over, have contracted COVID? It all seems like hearsay. The updated dashboard now has 13 cases on campus since they went back virtually (https://www.lasalle.edu/news/covid-19/)....so...I'm tending to believe the anecdotal evidence of the students regarding La Salle dorm restrictions and facemask guidelines not being followed properly or enforced by the school....and La Salle isn't even doing the random testing of other schools. By contrast...Duquesne has 10 cases since reopening...an urban suitcase school. Last week Duquesne did 719 random surveillance tests....719 negatives. How does a school that's fully open, with a much larger student population end up with fewer cases since reopening than a school with maybe 1/10 of its population there? I come back to what I said before. Seems some schools' administrations could plan and put the right measures in place...and some can't...even with the more limited population on campus. But hey..if leadership isn't modeling the behavior, why should the kids comply.
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Sept 18, 2020 21:07:20 GMT -5
What’s your endgame with all this? You sent your kids to other schools. Why are you tearing down La Salle?
You made your point. Some people disagree. Your constant killing the school for a decision by which you have no context on is just getting embarrassing.
|
|
|
Post by calsufan on Sept 19, 2020 7:30:41 GMT -5
What’s your endgame with all this? You sent your kids to other schools. Why are you tearing down La Salle? You made your point. Some people disagree. Your constant killing the school for a decision by which you have no context on is just getting embarrassing. I wish I could upvote this a million times, Joe. In my opinion he has an...
|
|
|
Post by las71 on Sept 19, 2020 7:49:11 GMT -5
What’s your endgame with all this? You sent your kids to other schools. Why are you tearing down La Salle? You made your point. Some people disagree. Your constant killing the school for a decision by which you have no context on is just getting embarrassing. This is why I requested that you lock the thred on the hoops board. I don't believe we need to blindly support everything the school does but he's made his point and now it just seems personal. If we all agree that we should have gone to Villanova or Duquesne will he just stop. These are tough times and I choose to support my Alma Mater.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,392
Likes: 6,325
|
Post by MisterD on Sept 19, 2020 13:13:35 GMT -5
He never would have signed up here if we didn't go on the Sweet 16 run. The support was self-evidently conditional.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Sept 20, 2020 17:01:06 GMT -5
Why are you tearing down La Salle? You made your point. Some people disagree. Your constant killing the school for a decision by which you have no context on is just getting embarrassing. Not tearing down La Salle...just the current administration (think of it as people who "tear down" the current presidential administration but are not tearing down the country. It's embarrassing that you can't make that distinction, and equally embarrassing to watch you criticize me for a decision for which I have "no context", while you just as vociferously defend that same decision with even less context. And you're right...it's embarrassing to watch the administration make a decision that will have long term effects on the financial health and enrollment of the school that was already declining, to watch the administration fail to have lower case numbers than schools that are open, and to watch the administration prioritizing basketball and fundraising for basketball over academics. Other similar schools are weathering this. School districts are opening back up more quickly than expected in the area. The administrative decision is embarrassing. It's funny....we seem to only be tolerant of criticizing the decisions of 18-23 year-olds on a court making decisions that affect a score of a game (Deas comes to mind as having been roasted by a number of people on here...unfairly in my mind), or a female graduate and her employee because some people disagree with the politics of that employer, but not the highest paid employee of the University making decisions the affect the future of the school we want to see survive. As a faculty member once told me..."You don't have to like administrations...they come and go....you just have to survive them." I'm hoping La Salle survives this administration. Quite frankly, I don't have much confidence in the school's leadership right now.
|
|