Okay, newsflash for those of you who have been living under a rock (or drowning the sorrows of a shitty semester in cheap liquor and obscure Netflix comedy specials): MSU has a brand-spanking-new President. His name is Dr. Samuel Stanley Jr., I shit you not, and since 2009 he has been President of Stony Brook University. He was appointed to this new gig at MSU after a totally secret search by the Board of Trustees, which is 100% the best way to regain the trust of a community you have continually let down for years and years and years. Shutting members of a community out of a huge decision that will affect them in many different ways is a-okay, says MSU. Sweet.
But I’m not here to talk about that. I’m here to talk about Dr. Stan the President Man’s Wikipedia page. Why, you ask? Simple.
I think he wrote it himself.
Honestly the writing is right on the wall for this one. Just go to the damn page yourself and see. Immediately you’re greeted with a bunch of warnings about how the page “contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner” and “is written like a resume” and “learn how and when to remove these template messages.” Truly damning stuff from the get-go.
Beyond that, the third sentence of the very first paragraph mentions his wife, who is a practicing gastroenterologist and active researcher. Um, good for you I guess? Who the fuck cares? I came here to learn how I can expect you to drive my academic institution further into the ground, not to find out how well your parents did setting you up.
Going down further to his time at Stony Brook you see how he and his wife set up a scholarship and how he’s the first physician to be president (again, why the fuck do I care), but surprisingly there’s nothing about the investigations into how SBU mishandled sexual assault cases. Or how 55 Distinguished Professors there wrote an open letter expressing serious concerns about how the University was being managed and a bunch of programs were being cut. Quite odd for an impartial encyclopedia article to omit these things, is it not?
THEN you get even FURTHER down into the biomedical research section and it talks about all the SUPER IMPORTANT work he’s done on INFECTIOUS DISEASES and how he’s won AWARDS and been given HONORARY DOCTORATES and how he co-founded the MIDWEST REGIONAL CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE IN BIODEFENSE AND EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES RESEARCH and how he’s got 3 PATENTS and how he’s PUBLISHED PAPERS just like EVERY OTHER RESEARCHER DOES and I’m sorry, is this a Wikipedia page or fucking LinkedIn?
I’m afraid there is only one conclusion that can be reasonably drawn from my unbiased observations: Dr. Samuel Stanley Jr. is the nastiest skank bitch I’ve ever…wait sorry, I’m too used to typing that. Let’s try again: Dr. Samuel Stanley Jr. wrote his own Wikipedia page. This is reason alone to have serious doubts about his capacity to enact the massive systemic changes MSU so desperately needs, and which they surprisingly do NOT teach you to do at Harvard Medical School.
I will not be taking questions at this time.
Not funny, unsubstantial claims, lots of whining. Give the guy a shot before cowardly blasting him.
The writer’s name is there, publicly visible. That’s not cowardly. You, however, omitted your name – seems a bit cowardly to me.
Also, it’s not whining, it’s satire, dipshit.
Reads more like an angry op-ed of someone pushing an agenda rather than satire. I simply believe Dr. Stanley should at least start the job before people write trash (satire) about him. No need for name calling.
Look into his history at Stony Brook. It’s not pushing an agenda to be skeptical of his history at other schools.
Skepticism in his background is fine if it’s pointed at the right reasons. Bringing up his wife in a negative fashion and attempting to discredit his medical accomplishments comes off as a cheap shot and is straight-up lazy, satire attempt or not.
You somehow completely misread the entire piece. The whole point about his wife and his medical accomplishments isn’t in any way “negative” or trying to “discredit” him – the point is that there’s a clear bias when these things are discussed and a very public scandal was not. Maybe try rereading the piece to get a better understanding of why you’re talking about!
Boo, you whore
LikeLiked by 1 person
(for anonymous, not Holly Simon)
LikeLiked by 1 person
lol ur anonymous (insert Spider-Man pointing meme)
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is one of the worst articles I’ve ever read in the entirety of my adult life.
I could have gone my entire life being totally unaware of the implications of reading this article of which there are many.
Please pickup a book about proper grammar.