The Vanderbilt Hustler first reported on the Wall Street Journal’s investigation of Chancellor Gordon Gee on Sept. 4. Since that time, over three weeks’ worth of worry and anticipation have been building up regarding the contents of the article. Yesterday, the story finally came, all 3,000-plus words of it, and all of us who have been eagerly awaiting its arrival are a little unimpressed.

Most of this is old news. Gee even predicted some of the article’s main points as far back as the Fall Faculty Assembly on Aug. 24, saying, “Do I think it will say some good things about us' Yes. Do I think it will say some particularly irritating things for me' Absolutely. It will say that ‘they bought him to come from Brown, they renovated his house, they paid him a lot of money. That was the reason that he came.’” He nailed it.

Gee may not have predicted the particularly irritating things the article said about his wife. The Wall Street Journal cites her for outspoken liberalism and smoking marijuana on university property. While the latter is definitely illegal and may reveal an unsurprising double standard between students and the chancellor’s wife, it is hardly worthy of noting in the Wall Street Journal.

The Wall Street Journal reporters, Joann Lublin and Daniel Golden, are blatantly attempting to convict Gee by association. In the few paragraphs that do not focus directly on Vanderbilt, they bring up three university presidents who have been forced to retire or indicted for committing fraud. However, there are no accusations of fraud in Gee’s case. These references simply allow them to claim that the story is about general trends in higher education, rather than just a swipe at Vanderbilt.

The real story here is the board’s apparent ignorance of the goings-on within the university for the past five years. The board should definitely be aware of Gee’s spending habits, which should be thoroughly reviewed and kept in check. In an interview with The Hustler, Gee said that he was concerned with transparency, and, as the article says, the board has already initiated steps to become more involved in the chancellor’s spending. It is disconcerting that this wasn’t done earlier, but at least it is being done. We hope to see results soon.

Students on campus are similarly in the dark regarding how the university is run, which is unacceptable. Most students and alumni who commented to The Hustler supported Chancellor Gee, but many probably are totally uneducated about the business of the university. Hopefully, if this article does anything, it serves as a wake-up call to students and student media- we should make sure to hold the administration and the board of trust accountable for decisions made concerning our university.

Submitted by Reeve Hamilton on Fri, 09/29/2006 - 15:15.

"corruption and scandal" unfair

The editorial you posted this comment on was commenting on the lack of revelation and the poor journalism in the Wall Street Journal article. It did not defend Gee's spending. In fact, it encouraged the board of trusts, students, and student media to take a closer look at it and ask more questions. As for the rest of the issue, it accurately presented the opinions of a wide a large number of individuals associated with the university in a wide variety of ways. That is not bias. In the meantime, nobody has accused the administration of corruption or scandal - just excessive spending. And you are right, that deserves to be looked at, and people are looking into it. But don't give the Wall Street Journal any credit for uncovering something sinister that they haven't.

Submitted by willi126 on Fri, 09/29/2006 - 14:17.

The Portrait We Paint

As I read the Hustler last week I found myself infuriated with the bias that dripped from each page. There was not a single word speaking against Chancellor Gee and the mismanagement of funds at Vanderbilt. Many students are apathetic about the issue and simply reiterate the resounding theme that he's moved Vanderbilt toward an Ivy League status. So what? I'm attending Vanderbilt not only for its rank but because I believed it fostered growth, progress, and a sense of community. The articles in the Wall Street Journal were shocking but more so by the articles in the Hustler which shed no criticism on Gee; this shattered any of the beliefs I once held in this institution. I was wrong. There's no denying that any ideas I had about Vanderbilt were false and unreasonable. To presume an institution would be promoting progressive ideas and fostering a sense of community would be ridiculous. The reality of this world is that the people serving our overpriced food are the common people: the people who work all their lives to feed their children, to pay the rent, to make it one day at a time. If this institution were progressive think of the changes that could be made to the community. But being progressive is unreasonable, in a generation of corruption and scandal lets continue the trend and allow this to occur, because it is perfectly acceptable. There is no need for someone to have six million dollars put into a house when there are hundreds of thousands of people living in poverty in Tennessee. What a great portrait we portray to the rest of the world.

Login or Register to leave comments.

EDITORIAL: Vanderbilt is still standing

"corruption and scandal" unfair

The Portrait We Paint

Login or Register to leave comments.

Vanderbilt on Twitter

Popular Content