Students are just fine with anonymous course evaluations, where many of them see it as an opportunity to rip their professors for their own poor performance, and many students use the anonymous ratemyprofessor.com to vent their frustrations with themselves with comments like "to hard!" But a petition for an anonymous vote of no confidence in an administrator from amongst 465 faculty? God forbid!

And who are the glasshouse-residing "staff" of this "staff editorial?" The only name I see in this entire op-ed is Blair Lord's, folks.

Here's a wild idea- how about the DEN actually report. This entire edit just points out the glaring flaws in your previous story. "What is not clear, however, is what these opinions are exactly."

Perhaps that should have been addressed before you wrote about and editorialized the issue.

Awful reporting- per usual from the DEN this semester.

"The petition makes vague references to Lord's policy decisions and hiring practices."

Does it really? The readers wouldn't know because the original article doesn't contain any substantive details (question sources, anyone?)

But, as these student journalist should realize, you have to read between the lines.

Let's see here. Certain faculty are upset because the provost is allegedly hiring his friends. During the first dean search (you know the one that happened last year but then was abruptly called off), Dana Ringuette, English chair, applied and didn't get the job.

Who could be circulating this petition then? Connect the dots. Question sources. The truth will be revealed. No rhetoric is necessary.

Those who are presenting the petition are unhappy that someone the Provost is friends with was chosen for a specific position, against the opinions of faculty supporting a more-qualified, EXTERNAL applicant. There are several other important issues included in the petition as well. It is available on the DEN website. Significant faculty input continually ignored is input denied. The petition asks for an opportunity for faculty to vote, for or against, nothing more.

Let's by all means "connect the dots," as the commenter above suggests. First, Dean Irwin applies for the position in the Fall of 2008, only to then drop out of the running without any explanation. Then, after the entire College of Arts and Humanities goes through a search and interview process, along with the Search Committee, the Provost announces that none of the candidates are capable of doing the job. A new search is called for the following year, whereupon, lo and behold, Dean Irwin is suddenly back in the running. She interviews, and does not emerge as the favorite of the Search Committee nor of the faculty. Weeks later, Provost Lord tells the Search Committee and the faculty at large that the clear pick, Elizabeth Dunn, is unfortunately unavailable, and so he has picked Dean Irwin instead. A faculty member calls Elizabeth Dunn and discovers, contrary to the clear implication of the Provost's e-mail to the faculty, that she was never in fact offered the job, that instead the Provost waited for weeks before calling her to say that she was still a finalist.

So that, friends, is why it is in no way vague or unfounded to say that the Provost has not been honest about the search process, and that it appears to have been decided apart from faculty opinion. If you're the kind of person who doesn't see anything wrong with this string of events, I don't even know how to talk to you.

I am an EIU atheist -- I don't believe in the Lord. I mean Blair Lord.

I find it so sad that the student journalists are now asking their anonymous sources to reveal themselves to the public. Do you understand the importance of HAVING sources? Do you understand that if you didn't respect their anonymity that you would have far FEWER sources? Also, do you understand why the faculty circulating this petition need to remain anonymous -- that the Provost is their boss? Do you see the irony in complaining that the faculty are anonymous, while at the very same time as you are complaining, you hide behind the collective name of "staff editorial"?