To the editor:

An editor has power. He can shine a light on corruption and help end it. But when he advances a personal cause, the focus and facts can disappear. Vagueness takes the lead; innuendo sails behind. These are the telltales.

Last Saturday, vagueness was everywhere. We were told of “the current attitude and feeling by growing numbers of alumni and friends,” yet none was mentioned. There was no reference to a specific complaint of any kind. We were told “the general dissatisfaction about what is going on : is near the dangerous level.” Just how “general” is it? What facts authorize pegging it at “the dangerous level”?

The only measure of the chancellor’s performance mentioned is the Board of Regents’ recent review. Because their appraisal was excellent, the regents must be “wearing blinders or earplugs.” Last this reader knew, enrollment at KU was climbing and research funding was at record levels.

In the opinion of many of our neighbors, “the excitement or ‘swagger’ that KU used to enjoy” has returned to outlandish levels and could stand to be ratcheted back a notch.

Almost hidden in a sentence where 10 subjects torment the verb “make” is the key to the column. One of those subjects is “special interests, often those associated with medical schools.” So, again, we are dragged from an obscure starting point – this time, the School of Business – to our editor’s pet peeve: He lost his long-running battle with Robert Hemenway to save KU’s hospital from St. Luke’s, and he hates it.

Bill Sampson,

Lawrence