Editorial Response

["President's Office" <auemail@mail.auburn.edu>]

February 28, 2002

Dear Members of the Auburn Community,

Normally I would not comment on an editorial in The Auburn Plainsman.
Today's piece on multi-cultural awareness is so thoroughly wrong,
however, that I feel compelled to speak to it. The editorial in question
suggests that action is not being taken, and that the "drive to effect
change is dead." These statements are badly mistaken and deeply
insulting to the campus community.

It would not have been difficult for The Auburn Plainsman editors to
learn the correct facts on this matter. Had they bothered to ask me, I
could have told them, for example, that a great many Auburn faculty
members are investing their personal energy and expertise in a wide
array of educational forums and programmatic proposals. These
initiatives supplement the ongoing efforts by the very same faculty
members to incorporate issues of tolerance, diversity, and cultural
awareness into the courses they teach. I salute these vital activities,
and am deeply grateful to the dedicated faculty who are undertaking
them.

In addition to the many faculty-based efforts that are under way, I
want to assure you that this administration has been very hard at work
on both short-term and long-term initiatives that will reach all
segments of the campus community. Forums were held to make clear that
the actions of a few did not represent the university as a whole. We are
communicating with the fraternities involved in the events of last fall
about remedial actions, and have begun an educational program that will
engage literally hundreds of staff and administrators. Our offices of
University Relations and Student Affairs have stepped in to help
communicate what we have done, and they will continue to do so as other
initiatives are finalized.

A variety of actions took place immediately, some much more visible
than others. Additional actions take time and planning and discussion,
and will be implemented soon. The editorial in question has done a
disservice to everyone involved in these efforts. It paints those whose
timetables differ from publication deadlines as irresponsible. Most
fundamentally, it reflects an attitude that at times can be more
provocative than informative. Whatever a newspaper's editors may
conclude on the merits of an issue, they should at least take the
trouble to get their facts right. On this score today's editorial merits
an F.

Sincerely,

William F. Walker
Interim President