If for some reason you haven't read the Wall Street Journal article yet, you can access it through ProQuest.

I was expecting something catastrophic, but as I finished skimming the article, I was not left sitting in a state of shock as I secretly hoped I would be. Obviously the $6 million in renovations to the Chancellor's mansion, Braeburn, seems a bit excessive; but at the same time,the expenditurescould be seen as an appropriate reward for his accomplishments in enhancing the university's status and raising the endownment by $1 billion since 2000. I figure that if the university is willing to pay that much to keep him here, it has good reason to, and so I place my trust in the institution and it's decision-makers.

That leads me to my cliche of the day, "It's not what you know, but who you know," and I think we are all aware that the Chancellor is good at engaging an audience and making a good impression. He's a charismatic speaker and knows how to make parents and students alike laugh. He's got a way with people, and that ability to find favor with all those he meets can and does do a great deal of good for the university. So, if the price tag on a successful night of entertaining is $15,000, I might cringe a little bit, but accept it as something that happens and is ultimately good for the university's reputation. I liken it to the lavish events the university holds for scholarship weekend. I was impressed and swayed by the display and presentation of the weekend I personally attended because I already knew the statistics on the university. My logical side was convinced before even coming; it was the university's appeal to my emotions and my desire for a nice aesthetic that finally won me over. My final decision was made based on the generosity and sincerity of the correspondence I received, and the way I was treated before I accepted my admission to the university.

Since the Kirkland administration failed to comment on most of the allegations and issues, I do feel like there is truth in everything The Wall Street Journal reported, but just as with celebrities like the president or Angelina Jolie, the focus is going to be on a lot of irrelevant issues, simply because they spark excitement. Case in point with the subhead, "Marijuana in the Mansion." Whether Constance Gee did or did not possess and/or smoke marijuana in the university-owned residence is completely unrelated to the topic of spending. Whether it was for medicinal purposes as claimed or not, it does not alter my opinion of her, her husband, or the university. It is a personal matter and has no bearing on my education.

Essentially, I was not really surprised by the article. I knew the chancellor made a lot of money, both through the university and through various other means. If I were that wealthy, I would like to live in a nice house and throw award-winning parties as well. Unless Gee's spending habits begin to take a toll on the amount of funding various organizations receive, the amount of scholarships available, etc., I don't think it's a huge deal. It's not as though it is one man making all the decisions. There is university backing behind most of the things mentioned in the article and now there will be more careful regulation of spending. This regulation seems to be a fair and effective way to prevent any abuse of power, which I don't believe is occurring in the first place.

What do you think'