Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Dick_in_MI, post: 5467915, member: 225"] I still fail to see how this looks bad for SU unless one is looking for it to look bad. They have not banned a donor. Let me repeat: THEY HAVE NOT BANNED A DONOR. They are insisting that said donor contribute via collectives just like you or I or most donors do. How does that make SU look bad? They certainly appear to have compensated for any supposed shortfall from that donor via increases from other donors. How does that make SU look bad? SU is not getting down in the mud and keeping this story alive, the PR machine of the donor in question is. How does trying to stay above the fray make SU look bad? My loyalty is to my alma mater but at the same time I have no bone to pick with the donor. I don't know him at all. I am basically neutral except for the insinuation that SU and the chancellor have done anything wrong simply because one donor's ego was ruffled. [/QUOTE]