April 21, 2026
A while ago, I wrote about the University of Missouri – St. Louis offering a second job to St. Louis police chief Robert Tracy, to help supplement his income. I was not sympathetic to the chief’s need to supplement his income, but apparently some people pledged to give the university money to help pay Chief Tracy’s salary for whatever he is doing there.
The Post-Dispatch ran an article yesterday saying that so far, only one person had made good on his pledge to donate funding to the cause. I’m not sure why they thought the public needed to know, but I’m sure that they had their reasons. I thought that maybe they were extolling the guy who was honoring his commitment, and maybe nudging the others who had pledged money to honor theirs.
The article then proceeded to list other donations the person had made, noting various political causes and Republican organizations.
Now, here’s the thing: It’s not a crime to be a Republican (even if you support people that I never would) and it’s not a crime to want to keep the chief of police in town. But what one has to do with the other is a mystery to me. So why make a point of the donor being Republican?
What really annoyed me, though, was that although this person supports the arts in a big way (Yes, I read the donor lists when I attend cultural events, and in the membership magazines I receive from cultural institutions I belong to), not one of those donations was mentioned in the article. Why not? Would that have ruined the implication that the donor was bereft of finer feelings, and indicated that he was maybe not a 100% bad guy?
I was very disappointed in the Post-Dispatch. They can do better than this.
No comments:
Post a Comment