• Readers not pleased with last week's commentary on the British Royalty and the late Lady Di
• Students are reminded to observe dress code at presentations
• A sad story about principles
• Question of the Week: Do you think public speakers can affect listeners?  How?

The notion of taking issue with a professor reminds me of similar instances when I've been out on a limb with a saw in my hand; however, as a principle-centered person, I feel compelled to begin sawing. The opinion expressed by Professor Paul Damien angers me beyond my ability to express such contempt, not because of the irrational content but rather due to his utter disregard for something quite basic. There still exists in this world a universal, cross-cultural courtesy known as respect for the dead.

After reading the article, I straw-polled a sufficient sample (n = 30) of MBA2s and statistically analyzed the results (thanks to Marty Young's efforts). Surprisingly none of them remember this professor berating Princess Diana or the monarchy prior to her death. The Monroe Street Journal archives show no record of previous submissions on behalf of Professor Damien outlining his disdain for the Princess when she was alive.

Clearly, the appropriate window in which opinions such as Professor Damien's should be expressed in such a public forum has passed. It is easy to condemn those who cannot defend - to take advantage of the absence of those that you denigrate. I find it analogous to the growing number of nameless, faceless offenses we have to endure everyday when we experience obnoxious drivers or suffer the slings and arrows of rude telemarketers. This burgeoning disregard for basic human courtesy is picking away at the very threads of the societal fabric binding us together?perhaps as unwilling captives in some cases?but together in the human condition, all the same.

As to the argument provided, replete with unsupported references to nymphomania, Nazism, rape, and hypocrisy, I'm not sure where to begin unraveling this emotional, baseless marvel. I'd suggest Sanka instead of your normal brand. As for the attempt to hold Diana responsible for the history of England, let me explicate the logical expansion of your point - the founding fathers of the United States should be held responsible for the cultures America destroyed along the way (they should actually). Let's not stop there; the French, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, Chinese . . . wait a second . . . since EVERY developed country has followed a similar rise to modern civilization, it follows that everyone in history should be denounced. Why single out Diana?

Your ultimate point is that Diana, given her station in life and potential to do great things for people, did very little. Perhaps this is true; however, in light of your superior education and station in life as the molder and shaper of young minds, I hold up your opinion and the flagrant disregard for elementary human courtesy embodied therein as evidence that you are doing even less. What will someone say of you when you are no longer with us?

I am equally appalled at the readiness with which The Monroe Street Journal printed Professor Damien's opinion. The Managerial Writing Assessment measured our ability to understand a target audience and tailor the message accordingly. I challenge The MSJ to comprehend more fully the audience to whom it caters. Leave hyperbole to the tabloid press.

I am writing in response to Paul Damien's editorial last week. I would like to comment on the way he chose to express his thoughts.

I pray that other men here were as embarrassed by his offensive, sexist language as women were. I believe that our faculty and staff bear a special responsibility to exhibit professional communication skills. In an environment like this, we should strive to discuss sensitive topics in a manner appropriate to the audience and the setting and with respect for members of the community. How can we say that this is a supportive environment for women at the B-school when one of the teachers believes he can only express his thoughts in the language of rape and female anatomy? Under the shelter of the opinion page, he is free to say what he pleases, of course. But how is any woman in this organization to look at him again--in the classroom, in the hallway, or in a meeting?and believe that he sees her as an equal and as a human being?

For those interested, George Melloan wrote a very interesting, articulate, and effective article in The Wall Street Journal last week?September 8 issue?which objectively discussed the differences in societal response to the passing of Lady Diana and Mother Teresa, acknowledged Lady Diana's accomplishments and foibles, and gave Mother Teresa the honor she most richly deserves, while raising some interesting organizational and historical questions.

I am compelled to respond to Paul Damien's outburst. Throughout the week I have noted a number of responses to his article, as well as my own. Freedom of the press offers elasticity in terms of opinion; however, many felt as well as I that Damien may literally need immediate psychiatric care. Such venom and negativity are safe on paper, however should we ask for reassurance that behavior mirroring his sentiments does not appear in his classroom? His ranting brings to mind Joyce's The Sound and Fury: "even idiots present valid concerns in the midst of their agony and no one hears them." This seems like such a perfect example.

This is a reminder for students attending corporate presentations. The expected dress is business casual! Many students have complained about the dress and conduct at corporate presentations. This behavior reflects poorly on the student body and the b-school.

Last year the MSJ published a flurry of heated letters on the issue during the first month of school. Let's forego dragging the issue through public debate again by improving behavior. Here are the expectations:

* Arriving late and leaving early is dis- ruptive

* Dress appropriately, not in shorts or jeans

* Conduct yourself professionally and courteously

These simple rules will keep your fellow classmates happy and sustain our school's relationship with recruiters. Remember, recruiters compare schools. Who wants to risk damaging the school's relationship with a corporation?

Once upon a time, there was a school in a far country. That school was famous worldwide because of the innovations in its curriculum and because it wanted to change the way people approached business. It spoke about responsibility that comes with privileges and about revolutions made in the name of principles. It had its models not so much in business millionaires, but in real leaders, like Martin Luther Queen and Focus: Despaired.

The school considered its students as its customers, and did anything it could to satisfy them. And the school was successful in it, as the student satisfaction rate was among the highest in that country.

In that country, something new was happening in the last few years. The schools had opened their admissions to women, realizing their great potential (it was a long time ago!). Actually, all the main schools in this country had up to one-third of their student body made of women. This school we are talking about was very proud of its women students and expressed its pride anytime it could.

But companies did not like women workers. They said that women are a hassle, they can have children and so they would not hire them. And, as a consequence, they didn't want to waste time interviewing them. They just wanted to interview men.

The sad thing is that the law, at that time in that country, allowed companies to refuse to interview women. So the school tried to convince the companies that women are as good as men in the job, sometimes even better. They told them that the women at the school had gone through a very hard choice and are paying a very high personal cost for this choice, so they are very motivated. They should deserve at least a chance.

But, no. The companies did not buy. They wanted men.

Women, of course, did not like the situation. They had come to the school to compete on the same ground, but now they felt discriminated against. They were aware that in the country men were still preferred to women, but they felt school would be different. They thought that all those speeches about defending principles even when it's painful meant that you should do it in your real life, not just in your dreams. They thought they were the customers of the school. They thought the school wouldn't make a segmentation of customers, deciding to sacrifice some (25%) of them not to damage the others. They thought the school would have said to the narrow-minded companies: "We are sorry, but we believe the future lies in both men and women. We also believe that discriminating against women is against our principles. Therefore, even if we cannot force you to interview with women, we will not allow you to come on campus."

That's what they thought.

They were dreamers.

The companies wanted men. The school gave them men. The school forbid women from attempting to interview with companies that did not expressly ask for them. Of course, they could try going directly to the company, try to convince someone personally. Otherwise, most of the companies had a branch somewhere expressly made for women, were they could be all together and not mess up with men.

Historians don't agree about the end of this story: some say that women gave up and accepted the school decision (after all, every other school was doing the same!). They went back to their homes and to their old lifestyles after the degree. They learned that dreaming is useless: it is much better to concentrate on making money with the least pain possible.

Others say the women got so angry they left the school and, after a few years, they did not even apply any more to the school. They opened their own school just for women and did not allow men to study or work there, except for janitorial positions.

Either way, it's a sad end.

Now, we are lucky we don't live in that country and in that time. We live in a great country were any discrimination is forbidden by the Constitution. We go to a school that would refuse any spot to a company that discriminates against women or, say, African Americans. In a school that defends principles and dreamers, that thinks that, even if painful, revolutions can be useful, even necessary, where there is injustice. A school that would sacrifice the minority not to damage the majority is immoral.

But we should also learn from history, not to make the same mistakes. So, I am curious. Dean White: what would you have done if you were in the shoes of that school's Dean? Can you share with us your comments about that story?