Spring Break
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Administrators must be more open
Letters to the Editor | 2/24/09
Posted online at 1:24 AM EST on 2/24/09
To the Editor:
In response to your article "Brandeis hires PR firm to handle Rose media attention" (Feb. 10 issue): I'm curious, as it seems that President Reinharz is backpedaling on the Rose decision in a way that indicates that the uproar is due more to a communication failure than the actual decision. If the Board of Trustees is changing its decision, that should be said. If the decision stands but the attempts are only to better communicate it, that should be said.
But having it both ways-attempting to carry out the decision to close the Rose while simultaneously claiming that the whole thing is a miscommunication-is the absolute worst of both worlds and, as much as I hate to say it, most business as usual. Stakeholders demand transparency, and transparency demands clear action. If the intention was never to completely close and dismantle the Rose, then this is a massive failure of communication, and the person at the University responsible for the communication should be fired due to incompetence. But if the intention was always to close the Rose, as was communicated so bluntly in the original press release and letter from Reinharz, then the University should own up and use its new PR firm to better explain the impetus for doing so, the behind-the-scenes decision-making process and how they believe an orderly and considered closure will benefit the University.
-Daniel Silverman
In response to your article "Brandeis hires PR firm to handle Rose media attention" (Feb. 10 issue): I'm curious, as it seems that President Reinharz is backpedaling on the Rose decision in a way that indicates that the uproar is due more to a communication failure than the actual decision. If the Board of Trustees is changing its decision, that should be said. If the decision stands but the attempts are only to better communicate it, that should be said.
But having it both ways-attempting to carry out the decision to close the Rose while simultaneously claiming that the whole thing is a miscommunication-is the absolute worst of both worlds and, as much as I hate to say it, most business as usual. Stakeholders demand transparency, and transparency demands clear action. If the intention was never to completely close and dismantle the Rose, then this is a massive failure of communication, and the person at the University responsible for the communication should be fired due to incompetence. But if the intention was always to close the Rose, as was communicated so bluntly in the original press release and letter from Reinharz, then the University should own up and use its new PR firm to better explain the impetus for doing so, the behind-the-scenes decision-making process and how they believe an orderly and considered closure will benefit the University.
-Daniel Silverman
Be the first to comment on this story