If you are not a student or alum and know so much about the situation concerning the Glomerata, then you are obviously a relative of someone who had a problem with the advisor. Like previously stated, just because the students do not receive the answer they want from the advisor, Dean of Students, or Communication Board does not mean they are not being heard. All actions need to be in the best interest of the University and publication, not the student with the complaint.

Since the publications at Auburn are considered learning labs, the students need to be treated like employees so they learn how “real world” publications run. Furthermore, if the publications are truly learning labs, then the word “learning” alone should provide enough evidence that students do NOT know what is in the best interest of the publication and should accept the instructions of the advisor. Lastly, yes, students devote a lot of time and energy to these publications, but they do not leave empty handed. These students are receiving pay and a nice cushion for their resumes.

Its truly a shame that a few individuals ruin such learning experiences for other students. Moreover, it is a shame that you (Kathy) speak about an individual whom you have no personal contact and are relying on word of mouth information. Need I remind you there are always two sides to every story?

As an Auburn University student, I have faith that the administration has placed competent advisors to oversee, not only publications, but all SAPs, who act in the best interest of the University.

Niki, thanks for the trackback. I’ve never met you, but I do feel bad for the anonymous comments that have been made on The Plainsman’s site. That just makes the whole controversy have a more improper tone. I believe you’ve made some good points and they should be respected as such, as well as your right to express your opinion.

Drew, yes is was bold. Perhaps too bold, more on that later. I, too, thought of how this must have been received by the GM as there was never any public discussion of this – over perhaps two years – and then this front page editorial shows up. It had to be quite disconcerting, if not painful.

Cathy, I appreciate your point of view. I must add that the situation seems to me to show that students were being heard (with repeated meetings), they just weren’t getting the response/action they wanted in the timely manner they wanted. Again, this is all still very cloudy, even given today’s Follow-up explanations about our front-page editorial.

There is more back channel chatter than there is public disclosure. It seems that today’s “Follow-up explanations” should have been their first editorial, not a follow-up. Why?

Talk here states that the GM filed retirement papers in late 2008. If that is true, and the students knew about it, then this editorial was uncalled for – at least in the form in appeared. Were they trying to hasten the retirement date? I don’t know. Again, there is still too much cloudy rumor and “I heard” talk which is absent in clear investigated and reported information in the paper. There are still too many unanswered questions. The paper is responsible for sharing clear explanations and facts. They have not done this, even with today’s response.

That being said, I don’t think we’ll hear the complete story anytime soon. It does seem to have peaked and will now be allowed to fade away.

The resolution, however achieved, seems to have been obtained. So many people have been hurt and there doesn’t seem any desire for many involved to say, “Enough. Let’s calm down.”

The whole thing played out very sadly.