Student "edition" found at {csi dot journalspace dot com}.

Maybe I shouldn't have started this blog now, not with everything that's been going on.

Okay, now I've remembered some of the things I wanted to say about the other college faculty members' blanket letter to the brother president about their preference on the new dean.

One more point that strikes me about the letter they wrote to the brother president is that there they mentioned two out of the three initial nominees by name, as possibly changing their minds about taking the position. Why leave out the third person (who happens to be the director of the school of engineering)?

Is it because out of all of those most vocal about writing the letter, they least prefer this person (which may mean slacker co-teacher had a heavy hand in this literal influence)?

There is also the gall of saying that before, there was a period where we survived without a dean, so they were basically saying "why not go back to that kind of (lack of) management" instead of insisting on getting someone from outside for whom the possibility exists we may not get along.

Of course the underlying suspicion here is that since no one wants a repeat of the dean quitting, that means the brother president will choose someone he will better get along with.

The conclusion these people have for that scenario is that anyone the president has on his side is someone who they will most likely promote policies which the college faculty also cannot abide with.

But, they don't want the path of greater resistance of quitting if they don't like the management. They instead want the management to be changed if ever it comes to that point.

There is also the strange usage of the word "mature" in quotation marks to describe the screening process, which may mean they hope that the qualifications could be changed either to allow one of them to step forward or get more qualified.

I'm glad the president basically turned down their proposal. What's wrong with only taking up arms against the new dean from outside if he or she proves to be detrimental to the growth of the school? Will they instead magnify small faults found in that person to desperately prove their point?

Session 2105 hates it when the vocal few speak for the silent majority. Class dismissed.