← Previous Post: | Next Post:

 

… about the continued hagiography coming out of Kansas State University as its revered leader Jon Wefald finally retires. The saint of KSU is a panting jocksniffer who has handed much of KSU’s money to a dirtily run football program. He has also engaged in nepotism and conflict of interest.

Wefald is your basic long-running banana republic leader. Power went to his head. The Topeka Capital-Journal provides details of his conflict of interest. [Note: I got the newspaper wrong originally; I've corrected that, and I thank my readers for the correction. I can't get the link to work at the moment, however. I'm working on it.]

*******************

Here’s the link.

****************************

And here’s the renaissance.

Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.margaretsoltan.com/wp-trackback.php?p=14263

3 Responses to “There’s something both disgusting and pathetic…”

  1. Observer Says:

    Just FYI, the publication you link to is not CJR. It’s the Topeka Capital-Journal, which is in fact located in Kansas. Pesky facts can get in the way of tidy arguments, unfortunately.

  2. Dave Stone Says:

    Correction: the CJ is the Topeka Capital-Journal, not the Columbia Journalism Review.

    Among other things, this shows that much of the bloom is off the rose in Kansas when it comes to Wefald and his record. An awful lot of people are very upset. You might check
    http://www.bringonthecats.com/2009/6/22/921159/the-board-of-regents-audit-it
    http://voices.kansascity.com/node/4877
    http://www.cjonline.com/news/state/2009-06-20/column_was_krause_wefalds_cheney

    As a result, I must respectfully but forcefully disagree with your claim that the predominant mode of discussion in Kansas continues to be hagiographic. From my conversations around town, the tone is miles away from hagiographic. "Furious" and "disgusted" captures it much better. New President Schulz and new AD Currie have been beating the drum of openness and accountability perhaps because they believe it (and I think they do), but also because alums, friends, and taxpayers are insisting on it.

    I have not heard or read a single defense of Wefald’s actions in this affair. The closest anyone gets to a defense is to add "but look at all the other things he did for the university" to a cry of despair over this whole sordid mess.

  3. Margaret Soltan Says:

    Thank you both for the correction. I note also that the link I provide doesn’t work. I’ll try to fix all of that.

Comment on this Entry

Latest UD posts at IHE

Archives

Categories