This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

I agree: what on earth? by ndtnguy

This is an excellent little piece. But really, it's even more befuddling than ACross indicates.

A lot of people blame decline on "the priests." But the priests ran ND much more tightly during its years of brightest football glory than they do now.

A lot of people lament that Monk and Jenkins aren't Fr. Hesburgh. But Hesburgh ran Leahy out of town on a rail and started many of the institution-transforming policies that Monk and Jenkins have developed.

ACross criticizes a lack of transparency. But nobody could see inside the decision-making process at all before the board of trustees was created. Nobody would care about transparency if things worked.

Etc., etc. etc. Objection, sed contra, respondeo.

There's a terrible lot in this world that is broken, and there's a terrible lot at the University that's broken, under the Dome and in the Gug. Maybe it is fair to criticize the clerical leadership: not because clerics are inherently lousy leaders but because the CSC has been saddled with feckless men. Maybe it is fair to criticize the lack of transparency: not because transparency produces effective results but because it would help identify the causes of the poor ones. Maybe it is fair to lament that Monk and Jenkins aren't Fr. Ted: not because Fr. Ted was a great president but because two decades of flabbergasting failure at every level makes his tenure look great by comparison. (Let's all pine instead for Fr. O'Hara: he knew what was what.)

It's a terrible situation, and a terribly complex one: a decades-long train wreck in which all sorts of things you love are destroyed. I certainly don't know what to do about it.