The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Reader Mail
Print Email
Text Size

Reader Mail

Cross Purposes

Loyalty petitions at William and Mary. Also: Hating America and Europe. Screen saviors. Enemies and friends. More Snow endorsements and Civil War reenactments. Plus much else.

(Page 2 of 19)

br> Chancellor Professor of Economics br> College of William and Mary /p> p> Thomas H. Lipscomb replies: br> My short answer is horsefeathers. Archibald seems to think that he can define the world his own way and deny common sense and common practice with no consequences. /p>

I reflected his denial that there was any danger to nonsigners when I asked him the question. Archibald’s flat NO is a stretch. The fact is one doesn’t know whether there would be any danger or not, but all we learned from Archibald was that he hadn’t even considered the issue.

To get technical about it, Archibald mischaracterized his activity as “a petition.” How is it a petition? What does it petition for? Archibald admits in his letter that in effect the “petition” was a blank check affirmation of “policy” (whatever that was). Archibald claims I suggested “that those who signed our petition might have been confused about President Nichol’s policy.” Clearly they might have since Archibald then has to go on to define “policy,” which is unfortunately not contained in his “petition,” after the fact in this letter.

But petitions don’t work like that. One has to petition for something specific. In this case it was not a petition. It was an affirmation of faith that whatever the President’s undefined “policy,” was just peachy with the undersigned.

And what is that but a loyalty oath?

What is most embarrassing is that a fine man like Archibald would be so naïve that he wouldn’t recognize he had cobbled together a loyalty oath that made anyone who signed it look like a fool.

The faculty met after Archibald’s “petition” was underway and voted in favor of an effective and well-worded resolution in support of President Nichol’s position. As for Archibald’s silly effort, as I wrote to a College administration official, “If I were you I would have Archibald formally withdraw it with the cover that the faculty now has a motion on the table that he approves of… and BURN his petition and forget who signed it FAST.”

p> TAKING OFFENSIVE
Page:   12 3 4   Last ›

topics:
Education, Mainstream Media, Economics, Business, Social Security, Religion, Islam, Abortion, Environment, Books, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Founding Fathers, Military, Iraq, Iran, United Nations, NATO, Socialism, Conservatism, Immigration

Letter to the Editor

Related Articles

More Articles From Reader Mail

http://spectator.org/archives/2007/02/05/cross-purposes

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord | 5.23.13

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey | 5.23.13

Obama's Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.23.13

Lerner's Plea

Ray V. Hartwell | 5.23.13

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara | 5.22.13

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer | 5.23.13

ADVERTISEMENT