The university staff council said that employees had nothing to fear about voicing their views on the subject. But as an unstated rule, this could possibly affect any career advances and could put those goals at risk. Seen it many times in the news, and it happened to me more than once in my life.
A few days ago the president of the university sent out a campus-wide email that had tones of discrimination towards other students while voicing his first amendment rights. This is truly a real-life example of crisis communications because of the type of publicity it has brought to the institution.
This type of attention is detrimental to every staff member, faculty, and student, on and off, campus. It draws their attention from their work and studies. It has the potential to affect scholarships and funding for those students that need help. And most of all it leaves the students in a position where they must answer to the views of the university while trying to find their own answers to who they want to be in the world.
This type of controversy is a great example for students of all majors to learn about First Amendment rights, but this type of education is not worth the trouble it has caused. As I read, and reread, and reread again, the letter that was sent out has links within it that go to another website that contradicts an idea that was discussed. Along with that, we revisit the incident that occurred during the “Buffs Around the World” event when the university administration did not address the event for two weeks after racist comments had been seen on social media.
Being in a high-profile position has its responsibilities. There is a responsibility to shareholders and taxpayers and to the donors who help with extra funding. Most of all, there is a responsibility to the students, not just the Ag students, college of business students, Baptist students, or Catholic students, but every single student that has come to this university to further their education. That responsibility should be respected and timely.
I have learned in graduate studies that before you begin to analyze data, you must be able to ignore your own beliefs and see the data for what is being presented. If this argument was not about ideology, then why were personal beliefs brought into the conversation? If this was truly an argument for women being demoralized, then women should have been the ones who made this decision. Set up a Qualtrics survey that has to have a Buff ID number and filter for only women, not hard. Men don’t get to make decisions for women like it's the 1890s again.
Now we all have that one person in our life who decided to write a novel on Facebook. We all have that one family member that sits down at a computer, cracks their fingers, and starts to go keyboard commando with their views of the current world in the comment section. I have been on both sides of those examples at a point in my life. I have found that talking to people before writing, before posting, and before hitting send, can help provide more insight into what others are dealing with or going through in their lives. I can seek out and gain more of a perspective than I would if I was closed-minded. And in those times when I want to write something and I do not have a proofreader or second opinion that will disagree with me, I go outside and make sure my feet touch the grass.