[CTcard]

I accept that actions giving rise to original investigation of the LSJUMB were based on reports from actual band members (i.e., the ones being - or at least feeling - harassed).  But that was in 2011 and 2012, right?
...
For example, if this "isn't about signs or terminology" then (a) why have the signs confiscated, and (b) why demand that "Sexion" and SMUT and other terms be removed for band lexicon? 

Like you, I also immediately noticed the apparent contradiction between Etchemendy's claim that, "It is not about how "Sexion" is spelled, or about the university’s public image" and the comments made in the various letters to the band complaining that they did not change the spelling of "sexion", need to remove their collected road-memorabilia, and the potential for liability.

So, the negative spin on this is that there is a circling of the wagons and a disingenuous effort to try to mollify the letter writers while going ahead with getting rid of the LSJUMB as we know it.

The positive spin is that Etchemendy himself is serious and has been led to believe from others that the suspension is only about much more serious issues of actual harassment by the band of some of its members. Under those circumstances, he might actually be open to listen, especially to things like the letters to the Daily from the rape survivor and the large number of female band alums.


Of course it would be a politically difficult for the Provost to over-rule Greg Boardman and the folks involved in the decision so far on such a public matter. My own thought is that in their appeal the band ought to focus less on the spring and more on making sure that when they do come back it is as an organization they want to be a part of.

[CTcard]

I accept that actions giving rise to original investigation of the LSJUMB were based on reports from actual band members (i.e., the ones being - or at least feeling - harassed).  But that was in 2011 and 2012, right?
...
For example, if this "isn't about signs or terminology" then (a) why have the signs confiscated, and (b) why demand that "Sexion" and SMUT and other terms be removed for band lexicon? 

Like you, I also immediately noticed the apparent contradiction between Etchemendy's claim that, "It is not about how "Sexion" is spelled, or about the university’s public image" and the comments made in the various letters to the band complaining that they did not change the spelling of "sexion", need to remove their collected road-memorabilia, and the potential for liability.

So, the negative spin on this is that there is a circling of the wagons and a disingenuous effort to try to mollify the letter writers while going ahead with getting rid of the LSJUMB as we know it.

The positive spin is that Etchemendy himself is serious and has been led to believe from others that the suspension is only about much more serious issues of actual harassment by the band of some of its members. Under those circumstances, he might actually be open to listen, especially to things like the letters to the Daily from the rape survivor and the large number of female band alums.


Of course it would be a politically difficult for the Provost to over-rule Greg Boardman and the folks involved in the decision so far on such a public matter. My own thought is that in their appeal the band ought to focus less on the spring and more on making sure that when they do come back it is as an organization they want to be a part of.