3 ms·
| If she really was concerned about the faculty's control over students she wouldn't herself have tried to influence the students That doesn't follow. Furtherm
by cxseven 11y ago
| If she really was concerned about the faculty's control over students she wouldn't herself have tried to influence the students
That doesn't follow. Furthermore, she was signing her single name to her response to a letter signed by 13 administrators and faculty. If anything, her dissent might have reduced the appearance of a cohesive insertion of Yale authority. What I have quoted was near the heart of her message and sensibly supported throughout.
Her Time article was on the same theme of the insertion of adult control over Halloween. Is this supposed to reveal a "premeditated" crime?
- gozo 11y agoI don't really see you making any arguments here. * Her letter tries to influence the students she had authority over as her position as associate master. It was implicitly co-signed by her husband, the master. The letter was only sent to those students. * Most of the rest of the letter has a different questioning rhetoric tone, of course no one can make you see that if you don't want to. * The article shows she had an agenda and wasn't just reacting to the letter. It bring into question whether she is appropriate for the roll as associate masters since she apparently thought promoting her own agenda was more important than good relations to the students.