West Virginia University’s English comp course rightly stresses the importance of argumentation in public discourse. You can’t just say boo. You can’t just say x. You have to say why boo. Why x.
WVU itself, however, seems not to have learned this. Its big-money new football coach is behaving badly in public, and the university is under attack. Here’s how WVU has responded:
After looking into its options, West Virginia University will take no action to refute allegations raised against the football program, athletic department and administration in separate columns published by two state newspapers over the weekend.
… WVU [is] assessing the validity of the claims it believes are false. University officials were also determining whether a response to the publications would be necessary.
A WVU source said Wednesday the university will not take any action, but “knows the Herald-Dispatch story had blatant inaccuracies.”
Uh huh. And what are the inaccuracies? If they’re blatant, they should be rather easy to refute.
Oh. WVU isn’t sure a response to blatant inaccuracies is necessary.
And it certainly doesn’t think reviewing the video footage of the coach’s most recent misbehavior is necessary. Why bother? Hell [spit]. Boys will be boys. And, you know, by and large, university football’s a nice clean business. You wanna argument? That’s my argument and I’m stickin’ to it. Hyuk.
June 2nd, 2011 at 9:58AM
I hit the link and then there was another link to an update. The update seems to be more favorable to the coach: http://pittsburgh.sbnation.com/west-virginia-mountaineers/2011/5/29/2196691/wvu-coach-dana-holgorsen-alcoho