Comments on: Pepperdine Statement on “Yes On 8″ Television Ads

By: a former employee

a former employee — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:26:33 +0000

Pepperdine is truly caught between a rock and a hard place. While I was working there, people were fired for being gay. Since Pepperdine is a private institution(no federal funding) they can be as restrictive in their hiring as they want(you must state your religion on the job application). But now they are forced to repudiate the yes on 8 commercials even though they desperately support it.Ha ha ha.Enjoy their discomforture.

By: Sapphocrat

Sapphocrat — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:45:26 +0000

Here’s an idea for Pepperdine: Fire the lying gasbag professor for defaming the school’s name. Problem solved.

By: Wendy

Wendy — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:36:12 +0000

The school handled this so poorly. They should have filed an injunction to get their name off the commercials. Or even to get the beefed up disclaimer placed there.

By: Yet Another Alumnus

Yet Another Alumnus — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:33:06 +0000

This is complete and utter B.S. As I’ve posted elsewhere, I’ve been emailing Benton, who has been ignoring me even though our families have known each other for decades, as well as the Provost, Darryl Tippens, and Peterson himself. Darryl has dug in his heels, and Peterson’s personal comments to me are even more bizarre and irrational than his ads. This is not about “academic freedom” — Peterson’s claims have already been established by a court as “false and misleading.” Obviously, Pepperdine makes more money placating the far right than taking principled stands — or no stands at all. I would take any “public pronouncements” with a very large grain of salt. The University can’t have it both ways.

By: Pomo

Pomo — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 05:19:30 +0000

I think its a nice letter

By: jesusislove

jesusislove — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:07:22 +0000

WWJD? Not this!

The arrogance of spreading a message of hatred on behalf of Pepperdine brings shame on the institution, the other faculty, and the alumni.

By: Jarred

Jarred — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:29:48 +0000

Just prior to running a second ad, the campaign announced to us that in their opinion it would be more effective if Pepperdine’s name was back in.

Of course it’d be more effective to leave Pepperdine’s name in the ad. The problem is, the inclusion of Pepperdine’s name should be based on whether its use accurately reflects Pepperdine’s official stance, not whether the use of the name will be more effective for the campaign.

And that’s the problem with such campaigns: They’re more interested in being effective than in maintaining integrity. Of course, this fact is obvious. But I think it’s important to keep pointing out the obvious in these situations.

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:10:32 +0000

As my german husband would say:

blah, blah, und blah.

Maybe I’m just being cynical– one must really bathe in the stuff if one is dealing with the protectors of morality and tradition– but somehow, I think this process will take about 2 weeks and 6 days.

Here are the key words: “We will take whatever measures we deem appropriate to correct the misunderstanding. I will be writing to alumni and donors to explain the delicate nature of the balance we strike.”

Take that, you villain. If you don’t straighten up right now, we’re gonna have to think about getting kinda tough with you pretty soon.

If they were actually and truly serious about it, they would be seeking an injunction to prevent any further airing of the ads until the offending language is removed.

But we wouldn’t to interfere with the Liawyer (mispelling intentional, if obscure)and his academic freedom, would we.