Provost's Email

What I thought was interesting about the Provost’s email is that it talked a great deal about recent events, yet no event was specifically mentioned by name. I personally feel like this is an ineffective communication tactic; in order to support or decry something, I feel it needs to be mentioned by name so the audience can clearly understand the message. The email felt more of an obligation than a sincere attempt to reconcile students with the events of Jamal Clark’s shooting, Syrian Refugees, Missouri University’s racist practices and the terrorist attacks in Paris.

The email goes on to state that the University has “an obligation to address these problems, openly, respectfully, and together” yet, these problems are not being addressed. Since the email was sent on November 18, there has been no follow-up, nothing communicating what has been or is planned on being done by the University to effectively address the University’s stance.

Lastly, I find it ironic that the email states “we all want the world to be a better place,” but it doesn’t describe what that entails. Those opposed to refugees, those who consistently supported racism at the University of Missouri, the cops who unapologetically racially profile and shoot people and so forth, don’t they also commit these actions because they too “want the world to be a better place?” I believe that communication ethics literacy is best represented with a clear message, about a clear subject with clear intentions of the good at hand.