2008 Woodie Awards
"Accountability" needs to involve more than just PR
Issue date: 11/30/07 Section: Opinion
We're sure you've heard about SRU being named to Consumer Digest's "Best Value" list.
We're also pretty sure you got word of the dozens of professors doing groundbreaking research in a variety of fields, the new text-message alert system, the environmentally friendly measures the university is taking and enrollment reaching an all-time high.
At every turn, the university's administrators and public relations office is making sure to point out to every single person who has ever donned Slippery Rock green of every bit of news that is taking place on or around the university.
Except of course, when that news isn't so great. Like, for example, when a 17-month-old lawsuit resurfaces that casts the university as an institution that makes gender-discriminatory decisions in order to save a few dollars.
Chances are you didn't hear about that one, if only because you didn't read a press release about it on the SRU homepage or receive a "Good News" e-mail about it in the last few weeks.
Turns out, the messy lawsuit that stemmed from the university's spring 2006 decision to cut eight sports teams, including women's water polo, swimming and field hockey, is back. This happened because the 12 female student athletes who brought the original lawsuit asked District Court Judge Donetta W. Ambrose to reopen the case.
In the original case, Ambrose ordered the reinstatement of both the women's water polo and swimming teams in order for SRU to become compliant with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which blocks universities from making gender-based discriminations in federally-funded programs.
In recent weeks, the university has tried to be more open with students about all things SRU, plastering a link to its brand-new "SRU Profile: Accountability 2008" Web site on the main page and distributing hard copies as well.
But while "transparency" is what President Robert Smith says is at the heart of the reason to implement the Web site, it also seems to be the single thing missing from SRU's handling of the Lawsuit That Wouldn't Die.
We're also pretty sure you got word of the dozens of professors doing groundbreaking research in a variety of fields, the new text-message alert system, the environmentally friendly measures the university is taking and enrollment reaching an all-time high.
At every turn, the university's administrators and public relations office is making sure to point out to every single person who has ever donned Slippery Rock green of every bit of news that is taking place on or around the university.
Except of course, when that news isn't so great. Like, for example, when a 17-month-old lawsuit resurfaces that casts the university as an institution that makes gender-discriminatory decisions in order to save a few dollars.
Chances are you didn't hear about that one, if only because you didn't read a press release about it on the SRU homepage or receive a "Good News" e-mail about it in the last few weeks.
Turns out, the messy lawsuit that stemmed from the university's spring 2006 decision to cut eight sports teams, including women's water polo, swimming and field hockey, is back. This happened because the 12 female student athletes who brought the original lawsuit asked District Court Judge Donetta W. Ambrose to reopen the case.
In the original case, Ambrose ordered the reinstatement of both the women's water polo and swimming teams in order for SRU to become compliant with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which blocks universities from making gender-based discriminations in federally-funded programs.
In recent weeks, the university has tried to be more open with students about all things SRU, plastering a link to its brand-new "SRU Profile: Accountability 2008" Web site on the main page and distributing hard copies as well.
But while "transparency" is what President Robert Smith says is at the heart of the reason to implement the Web site, it also seems to be the single thing missing from SRU's handling of the Lawsuit That Wouldn't Die.
Be the first to comment on this story