Let’s consider a recent statement from the Chair of the Board of Trustees, regarding reactions to the Erickson’s decision to accept the consent decree on NCAA sanctions.

The quotes I find interesting and important are as follows:

  • “…there has been a considerable amount of confusion and misinformation about how the university came to its decision to accept the consent decree…”
  • “…will ensure there is no misunderstanding or further confusion as to where the board stands on this matter.”
  • “I appreciate everyone’s candor and your sincere and heartfelt comments.”

The emphasis on confusion and misinformation is accurate – there has been much of both. But by recognizing only confusion and misinformation, this statement implicitly delegitimizes others’ reactions to the decision: ‘If only you weren’t so confused and misinformed, you would agree with me’. The recognition of sincerity and heartfelt comments is similar; it acts at the level of sentiment and avoids the issue of whether any of the reactions may have been substantive.

This is a typical communications strategy, but I would hope for better, since open and healthy communications and decision making requires a recognition of the substantive legitimacy of opposing views. The process by which the consent decree was accepted is certainly open to substantive inquiry and discussion.

p.s. My source for these comments is simply a CDT story, which contains only partial quotes. Perhaps a different portion of the statement does open the door to recognizing the legitimacy of opposing views and the value of vigorous disagreement in decision making… if so, please let me know.