Back in January several folks who've publicly supported the Save Grove City campaign were contacted by journalists at Grove City's Collegian paper. It appeared they were preparing to run balanced coverage of the controversy.
Yesterday, the Collegian ran this piece instead.
Yesterday, the Collegian ran this piece instead.
The Collegian reporters asked for extensive quotes from myself, Travis Barham, Scott Klusendorf and others. You can go read some of these quotes at the SGC website (below).
We are all busy people but took the time because we hoped for a fair story.
savegrovecity.com/timeline-of-ev…
We are all busy people but took the time because we hoped for a fair story.
savegrovecity.com/timeline-of-ev…
The story was delayed.
The key players received assurances that the story was progressing, but that the administration had taken an interest in the story and that the journalists were trying to balance truthfulness with the College's interests.
The key players received assurances that the story was progressing, but that the administration had taken an interest in the story and that the journalists were trying to balance truthfulness with the College's interests.
Well, the story that ran yesterday scrapped any semblance of balance.
It's a PR piece for the college, quoting only senior administrators and declining to mention the SGC petition whatsoever, or any recent reporting like my @FDRLST piece.
thefederalist.com/2022/08/31/des…
It's a PR piece for the college, quoting only senior administrators and declining to mention the SGC petition whatsoever, or any recent reporting like my @FDRLST piece.
thefederalist.com/2022/08/31/des…
The story yesterday seriously misrepresents the CRT controversy in some important ways.
First, the Board's CRT Report. The takeaway we are given is that the Report "ultimately concluded that the college was neither 'going woke' nor promoting CRT."
First, the Board's CRT Report. The takeaway we are given is that the Report "ultimately concluded that the college was neither 'going woke' nor promoting CRT."
Contrast with the Board's CRT Report, which vindicated substantially all of the CRT petitioner's concerns of woke incursions across the university.
And look how one of the same reporters characterized the Board's Report just last year in the Collegian.
gcc.edu/Portals/0/Spec…
And look how one of the same reporters characterized the Board's Report just last year in the Collegian.
gcc.edu/Portals/0/Spec…
The Collegian story also misrepresents the remedial actions taken. Many of the steps were implemented *by the Board directly* and didn't require any administrative action.
Other Board directives were reportedly balked at initially.
Other Board directives were reportedly balked at initially.
https://twitter.com/0ldmcconnell/status/1574450520726667265?s=46&t=asZnC-oXTHSX7akmPQNAwQ
Further, as I detailed in my Federalist piece, it is hard to detect even a feint by the administration toward the Board's most critical directive: ensure personnel alignment with the college's mission.
There were egregious cases that I explained in detail:
There were egregious cases that I explained in detail:
But alignment issues have otherwise been shown to be pervasive, touching on academic, administrative and staff personnel including student life and similar departments.
@0ldMcConnell has relentlessly documented all of this; here's a mere smattering below:
@0ldMcConnell has relentlessly documented all of this; here's a mere smattering below:
Moreover, some of the administrators quoted in the Collegian piece are themselves inextricably bound up with it. Tough questions should have been asked.
The Provost - quoted praising the new course approval process - was the one who rubber stamped past woke courses.
The Provost - quoted praising the new course approval process - was the one who rubber stamped past woke courses.
The Chaplain - who helped architect the woke chapel series - led a chapel program restructuring in the fall of 2022 (after the Board report), that is significantly less transparent and less formal.
https://twitter.com/0ldMcConnell/status/1566483900418953218?s=20
The VP of Student Life - who sat over a raft of folks pushing CRT in RA trainings, on podcasts and in chapel - now certifies that RA training materials contain no CRT.
Hard questions should have been asked, such as, with all the same personnel in place (and in many cases, no increased accountability or transparency), why should SGC petitioners have confidence that their concerns have been addressed in a meaningful way?
Many more examples could be provided.
But on the whole, this piece must be embarrassing for its authors because it is a transparent PR job, a mere puff piece for the Grove City administration, after they solicited quotes on the understanding that we'd get a real story.
But on the whole, this piece must be embarrassing for its authors because it is a transparent PR job, a mere puff piece for the Grove City administration, after they solicited quotes on the understanding that we'd get a real story.
It's worse for Grove City's administration. They have leaned on student journalists and taken a massive draw on their students' credibility in order to cover for their own inability to publicly explain and justify their actions.
So, this Collegian articles just presses the question to the Board more forcefully.
Grove City's erstwhile constituents know what this administration is, and what it is doing. The Board knows that they know. What is the Board going to do?
Grove City's erstwhile constituents know what this administration is, and what it is doing. The Board knows that they know. What is the Board going to do?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
