First, I find it interesting and amusing that he called me a Fargo Phantom crack pot. I do not work for the Phantom; I’m just and infrequent contributor. As far as being a “crack pot,” I have 45 years experience in higher education, all at research Universities, most as a faculty member, some as an administrator, some as a member of the NDSU University Senate, some at some of the worlds most prestigious institutions. Wonder what I’d have to do not to be considered a crack pot by InnerJoe.

Now, about the content of his remarks. Nowhere in my essay did I say or imply that funds that should go to education are going to athletics. What I did say is that that the exorbitantly funded athletic programs gives the APPEARANCE that NDSU and UND are adequately funded. Since that is the perception, why would the electorate want to change the system? Apparently InnerJoe did not read the part where I said that Steve Halstrom was in error in thinking that education money goes to athletics. JoeJoe’s right in that athletics funds athletics, but I think I implied that too. In fact, the move to division one by NDSU couldn’t have been otherwise: since the expense was borne by donations and therefore not appropriated funds, President Chapman told the University Senate that it was none of their business. Most members of the Senate were, I believe, against the move.

InnerJoe is also confused about how Universities such as NDSU are funded. He would have us believe that the funding is generated by state appropriations and tuition. He neglects entirely the considerable funds generated by research grants and contracts as well as private donations.

I wonder if InnerJoe even read the rest of my essay. It described the the evidently excess number of institutions of Higher Learning in North Dakota, implying that this a waste of the funds we do have. And we have some very recent evidence that these other institutions are not really as good as we have been told they are. That VCSU would try to refute the documentation is hardly a surprise.

I have one tangential comment for InnerJoe: it is bad journalistic and rhetorical form to argue ad-hominim: you’re not going to accomplish anything that way except turn off some that might agree with you a la Rush Limbaugh( to argue ad-hominim means essentially name-calling). It is also considered bad form to give someone a position they don’t have in order to attack it. Nowhere does ayone say my contribution is an article: I call it an essay.
No one that I’m aware of except InnerJoe has referred to me as an expert. I did say I could speak with some authority on this issue, and indeed I can. But this does not in my view an expert. Note that Inner JoeJoe made disparaging comments about each term, which are completely his and not mine nor Fargo Phantom’s.