We're not apologizing for it. We boast about it. It's an efficient use of time and resources.
Many of the words and descriptions in his e-mail are certainly antithetical to an institutional commitment to an inclusive approach to learning. I personally consider them to be highly inappropriate.
Ideas, even those inimical to our values, must be surfaced so they can be challenged. That is where education occurs.
It indicated that never should anyone purport to speak for anyone other than themselves and their personal views. The provost finds the communication in the e-mail to naturally lead to the conclusion the students reached.
It is not a university activity or an activity sponsored or affiliated with the institution in any way.
We considered this the views of one person ? he does not represent the views of anyone but himself.
This was just an episode, not a trend. It involved individuals, not teams or universities.
We want to find out what happened before we make a comment either way on it.
An investigation immediately followed (the first meeting between administrators and students) to assure the integrity of the learning environment in general, or specifically, was not at risk.
Any continuation of expression such as this could be seen as a threat to the learning environment.
Students had lined up the night before the game to get in.
There was apparently a verbal clash followed by a physical exchange.
I'm told we responded to her concerns by going to her son. However, at that point, the student is responsible for pursuing it.
If you have a 7 a.m. tailgate opening and a 7 p.m. kickoff, you can invite some issues.
I can certainly see that as to the tone and the content of the e-mail why it was offensive.