The Daily Herald editorial "Unless there's cause, COD should drop Breuder firing inquiry" is so replete with poor editorial insight, absence of journalistic integrity and obscure, sloppy reasoning a detailed rebuttal is warranted.
Would the Herald editorial have dared utter the following quote if the Board Chair's first name was Kyle instead of Kathy? 'It was a gentle question. But Hamilton recoiled as if her side had been nudged with a hot poker. With face reddening and lips thinning, she snapped: "Dr. Breuder does not represent the college." You had to be there to appreciate the abrupt shift in emotion.'
Of course not. Such language is sexist, unnecessarily prejudicial to Hamilton and has no place in a serious editorial. Using the single word quotes 'exaggerated'
from Interim President Joe Collins and 'political'
from Hamilton, similarly shed no light on the serious allegations that have resulted in multiple investigations of Breuder by local, state and educational accreditation agencies. The fact you conveniently overlook is that since being placed on administrative leave April 30, while being investigated, Dr. Breuder does not represent the college
Not content with your initial character assassination, you expand on editorial excessiveness by dismissing a majority Board vote, not to fire Dr. Breuder, but merely to start an inquiry into determining cause for termination, as 'something obsessive and oddly venomous about Hamilton's fixation with Breuder's destruction. Not satisfied with removing him from the stage, she seems bent now on exacting her pound of flesh.'
That piles on your initial sexism against Hamilton and denigrates the studied reasoning and support of three intelligent and articulate public servants, who, with Hamilton, have the support of most faculty and much of the COD community. But even Bernstein, Napolitano and Mazzochi get the Daily Herald gratuitous insult treatment with this gem: 'Sadly, her trio of rubber stampers on the COD board seem inclined to follow her off the same cliff of vengeance.'
It's curious that your editorial strongly implies Breuder is guilty merely of being a 'strong personality'
and accepting the old Board's largesse. That is an insult to the process of properly investigating the avalanche of serious charges that have already cost hundreds of thousands just to investigate. Offering not a shred of substance, you dismiss there being anything beneath the surface against Breuder by quoting Breuder's strongest supporter throughout this two year long saga, Diane McGuire, who 'suggests there isn't
And why does the Herald, in defending Breuder, casually toss off this snarky and inexplicable innuendo at Faculty Association President and strong Breuder critic Glenn Hanson. 'It's hardly incidental that Breuder played point in tough contract negotiations, and it's more than ironic that Collins has now given union chief Hansen a promotion and a raise.'
A first year journalism student would blue pencil that bit of gratuitous nonsense if given the editing chore.
It's clear the Herald has either failed to examine or consciously overlooked the serious allegations against Dr. Breuder including manipulating the governor to grant COD $20 million for an unapproved building; possibly inflating enrollment to spike state aid; possibly authorizing risky investments in violation of established fiduciary policies, and violating policy regarding use of alcoholic beverages at school functions, among others. They and others we may not be privy to should be carefully and thoroughly examined to determine if termination is warranted. Meanwhile, the Herald's Editorial Board should put down the 'hot poker'
they apparently prodded themselves with when they wrote this hit piece on new Board majority.