When I read the perspective on the campus police department, (Summer Edition 2011) all my normal easy-going, laissez faire demeanor went out the window.
“The police phrase being used by some of our men in blue is that the SWC faculty think they can get away with anything. One officer is said to have stated that the female instructor “deserved it.” By any standard, the issue here appears to be gender-based. Had the instructor been male, it would never have gone this far. An attitude that Chartier openly encourages.”
Do we expect to see any citations as to who these alleged officers are that made these comments? I doubt it. These are just made-up, inflammatory comments without so much as a standard “…on condition of anonymity” used by people who think they can be journalists but, having no true writing ability, try and make their sloppy work sound more titillating.
“Though misogynistic, anti-faculty police officers work on campus.”
Again, nice sensationalist opinion. Any psychological proof or filed grievances to back up this statement? Of course not.
“Other faculty members have reported numerous occasions where police have been seen roughly disciplining students.”
Any of these “other faculty members” willing to cover your backside and take credit for these allegations that should have been reported; if they actually happened, that is?
“Numerous professors have complained about the tactics some officers are using against students carrying skateboards.”
Same question. Any of the “numerous professors” willing to cover your backside and take credit for these allegations?
“….some officers have begun to claim that carrying one (skateboard) is also an infraction.”
Proof, please. Name names or it means nothing.
“Yet others act with the heavy-handed tactics of cowboy police who they feel have carte blanche to act as they please.”
Without some sort of grievance or other documented evidence, this is just more unfounded, inflammatory rhetoric used as filler to occupy space.
“Chief Chartier can be aloof, impetuous and disengaged.”
Libelous and unfounded opinion. Have you ever met with or talked to the Chief? Maybe your opinions come from the opinions of others you’ve interviewed? If that’s the case, proper citation with credit given to the person making the comment makes for much more credible writing and reporting.
“Chartier rules with an autocratic management style reminiscent of a Wild West gunslinger.”
Leaving aside the minor issue of history having no reference to any “Wild West gunslingers ruling with autocracy,” what makes you think this is proper writing skills? Have you ever worked for, or even interviewed Mr. Chartier in order to personally evaluate his management style?
“A crony of the discredited Alioto embodies casual misogyny, an anti-student and anti-faculty state of mind open disdain for those that disagree Chartier is also lazy.”
Chief Chartier was here before Mr. Alioto therefore the cronyism charge has no merit and demonstrates complete lack of concern for factual reporting, relying instead on a reference to a current bogeyman as a means of inciting contempt through unsubstantiated guilt by association.
As for the statements, expressed as fact and not quoted as opinions of the writer, that the Chief is a “lazy misogynist, with an anti-student and anti-faculty state of mind,” I can honestly say that is the vilest and clear-cut example of libel I’ve ever seen.
“The hot-headed chief manhandled students – including teenaged girls – and stormed around in a white-hot rage.”
Really? The Chief manhandled teenaged girls and nobody filed a lawsuit?
In hindsight, I’m surprised Mr. Branscomb and the editor, , would allow an amateurish article to appear in this award-winning newspaper.
The bottom of page two in every edition of the Sun contains a statement as to the “Letters Policy” of the newspaper. “The Sun reserves the right to edit letters for libel and length and will not consider publishing letters that arrive unsigned.”
Here’s my signature. I stand by every word of it and will defend it to the end.
Al Garrett
