Group letter to the editor

As per our group discussion on IRC last week, I'm in the process of drafting a group letter to the editor regarding recent events. I hope to have it to Anne for editing sometime early tomorrow afternoon. Once she runs through it, I'll begin collecting names to be included at the bottom. Hopefully, I can send it off to the Sun by Sunday night.

-john

do you want us to start posting names now if we would like to put ours on it?

I'm in. . .

No. I will not accept names to be signed at the bottom until you actually have chance to read it first. I'm flattered that you trust me to speak for you, but I can't in good conscience include your name without letting you first read the letter.

well. we can wait. but honestly - whatever you have to say against what has been happening will be fine by me. i will gladly join in. something has to be done and i applaud your effort.

Here is the letter that I am sending to Mr. Noel, Dr. Rawlings, and the editors (respectively) of the Cornell Daily Sun, Ithaca Journal, and New York Times. It's too long for a letter to the editor (especially by Sun standards) and in the wrong voice but I at least want the editors to know what is going on.
Pardon any typos/spelling errors, I haven't edited it yet, just wanted to post a draft.

_______________________________________________________
Dear Mr. Noel,

By now you are no doubt aware of the growing displeasure among a large group of donating Cornell alumni surrounding recent decisions made by the department that you lead. At the start of the recent hockey season, I was looking forward to hearing the broadcasts of Big Red hockey via the Cornell radio feed. Adam Wodon has proven himself to be a fine young sports broadcaster and it would have been exciting to hear his take on what should be a memorable season on the Hill. Unfortunately, your department made the decision to start charging the Cornell community to listen to Mr. Wodon's broadcasts.

I ask, what sort of market research did you do before making this decision to charge for access to the games? Surely you sampled the demand side implications of your actions, correct? While I'd like to believe that Cornell Athletics made a reasonsed and scientific business decision, somehow that seems unlikely given the enormous amount of public embarrassment that has now been caused for your department.

Today also comes word from Ithaca that your department has made the command decision to disallow Age Manocchia's HockeyCam at Cornell home games. I am frankly stunned by the flippant judgement excercised by your department in pulling the plug on Mr. Manocchia's volunteer effort. HockeyCam was a groundbreaking program that could only serve to expand Cornell hockey's base of fans, media, and talented recruits. Whatever personal vendetta your department has toward Mr. Manocchia must be set aside for the good of the entire community.

Not only will I not pay your webcast fees, but I also write to inform you that my donations to Cornell University and Cornell Athletics have been suspended effective immediately. Do not underestimate the great number of alumni who are in the process of doing the exact same thing. Dr. Rawlings has recieved a carbon copy of this letter; along with the editors of The Cornell Daily Sun, The Ithaca Journal, and The New York Times, respectively. It may very well be too late to save my donation, but for the sake of Cornell University and its hundreds of brilliant student athletes, eliminate the webcast fee and allow HockeyCam at Lynah Rink.

Regards,

Adam J. Simons '01

Hey Adam, are you sending your letter to those outlets via email or snail mail? If you're doing email, would you be willing to post the addys? The rant I sent to Mr. Noel is over in the "No More HockeyCam" thread, and I would love to pass it along to the folks you mention. Thanks!

Seems to me the audience of Cornell Magazine is more relevant than the Journal or Times, but that's just one man's opinion. The downside is it's two months until the next issue.

I agree with you Al, the Cornell magazine is an appropriate recipient.

Sure thing Lisa. I'm thinking e-mail, and I might also fax copies. But e-mail for sure.

jan16@cornell.edu (Andy Noel...I guess Andy is not his first name?)

aa234@cornell.edu (Amanda Angel, the Sports Editor of the Cornell Sun. I'm sure you must read this board Amanda, so very sorry for posting your e-mail addy to everyone, but you're a good journalist; surely you can handle it).

editor@cornelldailysun.com

editorial@nytimes.com

The Ithaca Journal makes you submit anything to their editorial board through this link:
[www.theithacajournal.com]

No prob.

[cornell-magazine.cornell.edu]

Submit letters through this link.

Great letter, and I'm on board as well, sans alumni status, but I will be one day, soon even.

Only comment, maybe put something about the infrastrature already being in place for Age to do the broadcasts for free, and him being willing to do so. It would also be a good tie in to the snubbing of his hockey cam - a man who does so much for Cornell hockey who isn't consulted, asked, or even told when they up-end his efforts.

Just one undergrad's opinion...

-Fred Trinkoff, '03

OK, without a doubt, Andy Noel's decision is a bad one. I support the letter myself.

But I wonder if I'm the only one who thinks that a "Screw Cornell Athletics" logo on this web page is a bit over the top. I think if Age (as well as many of the rest of us) look hard in the mirror, we'll recognize that when presented with a choice of trying to deal with a problem constructively or resort to taunting and insults, we've resorted to the latter.

Age, CU Athletics is wrong about plenty of things. But ferchrissake, once in a while show a little humility yourself.

Tom

As per my other post, I'm in, with sigature and/or money as needed.

I agree completely, Tom. If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that when dealing with this type of situation, you should never, never, never, never give up the moral high ground by stooping to insults and ad hominem attacks. Doing so simultaneously makes your argument appear weak (is that really the best you can come up with?) and strengthens the opponents' resolve - terrible combination.

Age, please try to be less defensive, and less focused about what people may have done to you personally. We want HockeyCam back; we don't care about being right or righteous.

Thanks,

Robb

FYI: I received this e-mail response today from Sharon Tregaskis of the Cornell Magazine. I guess the length restriction is something to keep in mind for writing a group letter . . .

[q]
Dear Ms. McGill,

Thank you for sharing your correspondence with Cornell Alumni
Magazine. We restrict letters to the editor to 200 words, to
accommodate as many alumni as possible within the section. Would you
like to edit your letter to a shorter length so it may be published
in our pages?
[/q]

Yes, it does say that in the magazine. Carol Bender's expression of outrage over the firing of Dean Phil Lewis is at least 300 words, however, but I suppose there are exceptions to every rule.

Your letter, Lisa, is very well done and I'm very confident you'll find a way to express your feelings just as well within the 200 word limit. And many thanks for representing so well the sentiments of all of usl.

I just realized I forgot to say this earlier... Count me in for a signature.

Things are afoot behind the scenes which require major revisions on the group letter. However, I still hope to have it ready by tonight.

Moreover, I've decided a full page ad in the Sun, perhaps for a full week, makes a much stronger statement than a sinlge letter to the editor.. Once I figure out the cost, donations will be welcome.

-John

Thank you, Al!

Just to be explicit, I don't mean to imply that my letter should be the group letter. I'm planning to stick my signature on whatever John writes, because I suspect he has the overall view of the situation. But I wouldn't mind seeing a whole bunch of agitated letters in the Cornell Magazine

{ot] What was up with firing Dean Lewis, anyway? I guess Athletics doesn't have the monopoly on poorly explained decisions.