Overkill

Blaine De Lancey
312 Miles Ave.
Syracuse 13210
      

Dr. Jane M. Lillestol
Vice President, Office of Alumni Relation
Syracuse University
820 Comstock Avenue
Syracuse 13244-5040
      

March 1, 1993

Dear Dr. Lillestol:

My sincere apologies, first of all, for failing to address you properly in my earlier correspondence. I had no excuse, really: when I started working here you were Dean of the College for Human Development, and I should have known better. Further evidence, I fear, of the effects of the aging process on mnemonic capabilities: again my apologies.

Thanks you for your recent response (February 24, 1993) to my letter. It is certainly encouraging to know that the Alternative Orange is being read in the corridors of power. Your letter confuses me somewhat: you write that had I sent you a copy directly, you would have answered me earlier. In fact, I did. And in fact, you did, on November 9, 1992: a copy of your earlier response is enclosed. I did not feel it appropriate to print your first response in the Alternative Orange without your permission to do so.

Your second response, however, is copied to the AO . We don’t get nearly enough letters that we feel we can afford not to print the ones we receive (why after all do you think we printed two letters from staff members in the January issue?). Thus, I am writing to ask your permission to print your first response in the AO : to print only the second response, I think, rather misrepresents the situation.

Your second response is also copied to the Daily Orange : perhaps they have better things with which to fill their pages than the documentation of our correspondence. On the chance, however, that this is not the case, I would request your permission to send them a copy of your earlier response as well. Chancellor Shaw, it seems, has been copied on all of our correspondence, so we needn’t bother him further. However, David May received a copy of your first letter but not your second: maybe we should let him in on the fun, too.

I think that you have misinterpreted my comment about the regulations prohibiting solicitation during work hours: I did not receive the Wayneco mailing at work, so don’t lose any sleep about a lowly Recorder III being on the “all mail list”. If our back-and-forth to date is any indication, it is probably best for all concerned that I am not.

However, I expect that your letter which was included in the Wayneco package was prepared during work hours. Since it is nothing more than a print version of what I must endure ad nauseum on television (have you considered putting our seal on Slim Whitman’s greatest hits? How about Zamfir mastering the alma mater and “Down the Field” on his panpipes?), I take your letter to be a violation of the regulations regarding solicitation. I am well aware that my interpretation of that prohibition — id est , that it applies to everyone at SU and not merely to clerical peons like myself — is not widely shared.

Your comment, then, that I am wrong to suggest that Syracuse University paid somebody to produce a mailing to market Wayneco wares, is inaccurate. I assume that you and your staff receive salaries from this institution. If I am wrong, then I not only owe you an apology but also one to Chancellor Shaw. His “right-sizing” plan must be working better than I had ever dreamed if he has you folks working for nothing.

You (along with many others, judging from the comments I have received) “gather” that my “objection is not to the globe itself” but to its use to commemorate Columbus. You gather wrong; I guess that I did not make myself clear. The adoration of Columbus is insulting; however, I should have been offended to be offered the chance to spend $295 on an official Syracuse University/Wayneco globe no matter what was commemorated. This is a misuse of Syracuse University time and money, and a public embarrassment to the institution.

Perhaps if we at SU addressed more time to education and research and less to such profit-making schemes, then, well, then we wouldn’t be criticized so much for our attention to such profit-making schemes. Where does one draw the line between the SU/Wayneco globe and the SU/Ginsu knife?

In your first response to me you further imply that the Columbus connection should not have offended me anyway, because as a graduate of Syracuse University, I “experienced an educational environment which tolerated contrasting opinions and encouraged free exchange of ideas.” Let us leave aside the fact that many members of the SU community might challenge your rosy view of our tolerant campus. Are you seriously taking me to task for interrupting Syracuse University’s right to free speech? I like to think that I know when I am beaten. Since you recognize my “right to choose not to purchase this item”, I recognize your right to avoid the issue.

Thank you again for your responses.

Sincerely,
Blaine De Lancey
      

cc: Chancellor Kenneth Shaw
    The Alternative Orange
    The Daily Orange
    David May