The mis-education of the Wall Street Journal

I can’t believe this editorial. Yes, the Wall Street Journal is entitled to its opinion, but not to its facts. Yet this editorial is full of what can politely be called inaccuracies.

How about this?

But Ms. Sullivan—a sociologist by training—turned out to favor what she called an “incrementalist” approach. As late as this March, she said U.Va. was “pretty lean” and “I worry about getting leaner.” Yet administrative spending jumped 68.9% between 2003 and 2009, compared to spending on teaching that rose 42.4% over the same period.

All true but with one glaring omission: Sullivan wasn’t president between 2003 and 2009. She didn’t take over until 2010.

Or this?

The deans of 10 of the university’s 11 schools have signed a letter for Ms. Sullivan’s reinstatement.

Tellingly, the one dean who didn’t sign the letter runs Virginia’s graduate business school—perhaps because the protestors are vilifying the trustees as wealthy corporate scoundrels who shouldn’t have a say in how a public university is run.

Um, earth to WSJ: the one dean that didn’t sign was named as the interim president and the other deans didn’t think it appropriate to ask him to sign it. No matter: he separately said he didn’t support the ouster of Sullivan.

I have a hard time believing the writer(s) of this editorial are as dumb as they appear.

Shame on the WSJ for such a misleading editorial.

4 thoughts on “The mis-education of the Wall Street Journal

  1. While historically the WSJ’s reporting had been top notch, their editorial page has never been based in reality. Since joining the New Corp family of propagandists, it is not a paper worth noting.

  2. Vivian, I love your writing and as liberals go you are much fairer with your journalism than the majority regardless of political slant. As for this article I sense some partisan hair splitting.

Comments are closed.