Community, inclusive, commitment, all who
I suppose university administrators are simply legally barred from talking sense? I suppose they’re contractually bound to talk formulaic soothing dribbling beside-the-point feel-good bullshit? They can do no other?
I suppose when they take the job they are issued with a box full of the correct words, and when they have to write a statement about something, they are strictly forbidden to do it without relying on the box for at least 60% of the content? The rest being taken up with neutral and necessary words like ‘is’ and ‘you’?
What’s in the box? Oh come on, you know.
…fully support the rights of our students and others within this community to express their concerns on this issue…many in the University community…the tolerant and inclusive values of the Washington University community…apologize for the anguish this decision has caused to many members of our community…a broad impact on American life and have sparked widespread debate and controversies…commitment to strengthening diversity and inclusiveness and to improving gender balance…students and faculty from all walks of life, from most systems of religious belief and political thought, and from all corners of the world…widely diverse individuals…stronger because disagreement…opportunity to speak as individuals…widely divergent agendas…dialogue and discourse…an institution that nurtures debate and tolerance…deeply committed…rebuild damaged relationships with members of our community…to make this a community so open, tolerant and inclusive…work together…all who live, learn, discover and create here.
It’s deeply moving stuff, isn’t it. So why does it make me want to kick someone?
All people in political positions have to become proficient at bullshit, unfortunately.
But honestly, Schlafly has publicly said that husbands have a right to rape their wives–a sadly common view, but not one that people should get honorary degrees for. This isn’t just being conservative. This is being an apologist for violence against women.
Phyllis Schlafly has absolutely no redeeming characteristics whatsoever. As Kant noted, even practical virtues such as intelligence and determination cannot be valued in a person lacking in good will – and Schlafly’s entire life is devoted to evil ends, all the time. It’s amazing to me that she doesn’t literally choke on her own bile. If I had a degree from Washington University, I would gather all the alumni I could to meet on the president’s lawn for a degree bonfire to demonstrate my appreciation for the worth of said degree from any institution that would deem Phyllis Schlafly a personage worthy to honor.
It would be nice if there was some kind of museum where twodle of this magnitude could be preserved so tht future generations could point and laugh.
Ophelia, you really, really do have a great gift at deconstructing bullshit. Your opening line on this is priceless. Long may you reign
;-)
Used to be that universities just had Latin mottos four words long – like dicimus bovis merdas hic.
In fact all such statements should be translated into Latin before they are allowed to be released. That would concentrate their minds, and their prose.
Hee hee hee, KB. I retain just enough Latin to get that. Well, Latin helped out by French – I don’t recall ever learning ‘merdas.’
Thanks Nick! (My plan is to reign forever.)
Sed nemo potuit tangere: merda fuit?
Wit as cutting as my soggy socks (don’t ask).
So, there is nothing worthy in either tome? Good Samaritan?