tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post2912420958317134697..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: A Tale of Two Letterskcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger192125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-53193441830363865402007-09-29T00:05:00.000-04:002007-09-29T00:05:00.000-04:00Dear Courageous Duke Prof:Thank you! Surely ther...Dear Courageous Duke Prof:<BR/><BR/>Thank you! Surely there are more like you???<BR/><BR/>Are you inclined / disinclined to stay at Duke, since it appears you are not tenured?<BR/><BR/>I understand individualism. But then I am over 65. <BR/><BR/>Where is that faithful blog-mate who keeps asking "Is ---- Communist?" <BR/><BR/>Our Duke Prof just explained to us the difference between individualism and collectivism. I am not one of the esteemed scholars who contribute to this blog, but I do occasionally contribute a thought... but if I understand it, does not this touch on the essence of the question of the value of the individual versus the value of the "group" ( STATE)<BR/><BR/>I know that is much too simple overall, but it seems to me that our Courageous Duke Prof has a finger on a nerve.<BR/><BR/>The loyal opposition at Duke, those Professors and Assistants and Fellows, etc need to decide whether they will muster the courage to step out from behind the skirts of tenure and job fears, and lead the campaign to take back Academic Freedom. In essence, it is their own freedoms that are being stolen, and then the robbery is passed on to the students.<BR/><BR/>If the faculty allow fear and intimidation to silence them, what are they hoping to teach the students about courage and moral responsibility?<BR/><BR/>Surely, Dear Duke Prof, you must have enough kindred spirits to make a difference.. a sort of collectivism in reverse.<BR/><BR/>If Todd Beamer had not assessed the situation and mustered the courage to storm the cabin of the American Airlines plane over Pa. there would have been yet another building burning in DC on 9/11. I'm not wanting to be melodramatic here, but I am saying that freedom ALWAYS costs somebody or several somebodys.<BR/><BR/>I personally think that what KC has done is extremely courageous. I am quite sure that he must have been the brunt of much ridicule from some PC colleagues in academia.<BR/><BR/>But he was driven by something bigger than self-interest. So he dared to step out as an INDIVIDUAL. And the rest is history in the making. I daresay that he did NOT forsee the unfolding of this journey when he set out.<BR/><BR/>So I believe that Duke University Professors who have allowed others to steal their voices ( yes, you choose NOT to speak... I might have done the same in the circumstances, but I hope not) might want to consider FINDING their voices. Otherwise, the intimidating will just continue, because they have found that it works.<BR/><BR/>Harper Lee has Atticus Finch say, in "To Kill A Mockingbird" "Decide, Jones, Decide, Until you Decide you are only occupying space." ( I hope I got the quote right... I don't have the book beside me. But it has haunted me for many years, and made me speak when I would have preferred to be silent.)<BR/><BR/>Speak, Dear Duke Prof. Thank you for being here. I am sure there are more of you.<BR/><BR/>dslAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-1027570167622892502007-09-28T20:35:00.000-04:002007-09-28T20:35:00.000-04:00RRH at 6:19 wrote wrote"Btw, DP, a couple of quest...RRH at 6:19 wrote wrote<BR/><BR/>"Btw, DP, a couple of questions, out of concern for your well-being: (1) Are you worried that someone will be able to identify you as "The Dissident", and (2) Do you have tenure to protect you from Party Discipline?"<BR/><BR/>Yes and no.<BR/><BR/>Duke ProfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-50076789056051223592007-09-28T18:19:00.000-04:002007-09-28T18:19:00.000-04:0011:22 PM wrote"9:24. Are you sure you are a Duke P...<I>11:22 PM wrote<BR/><BR/>"9:24. Are you sure you are a Duke Prof?"<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Not only is he a Duke Prof, he's my leading candidate for faculty advisor once I become provost there.<BR/><BR/>Btw, DP, a couple of questions, out of concern for your well-being: (1) Are you worried that someone will be able to identify you as "The Dissident", and (2) Do you have tenure to protect you from Party Discipline?<BR/><BR/>RRHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-2659518556200481372007-09-28T16:03:00.000-04:002007-09-28T16:03:00.000-04:00amac, 1:31 here. You raise some good points. Re th...amac, 1:31 here. You raise some good points. Re the contractual issues, it is impossible to opine intelligently without reviewing the contract and applying its terms to the LS. I think Steve may have made that point as well. I think that garden variety contractual grounds for tenure revocation would likely include a patterned, complete failure to meet minimum academic responsibities, conviction of a felony, insubordination, sexual harassment, etc. (Steve may know better since he has presumably signed such a contract). I also wonder if there may be a "catch all" provision that would permit revocation on other grounds not specifically enumerated in the contract. I part company on the view that only the text of the LS is relevant. The context in which it was issued and the motives of the 88 would most certainly be relevant in a lawsuit. KC has ably recounted the contextual issues, and I will not rehash them here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-35474383495322669452007-09-28T15:52:00.000-04:002007-09-28T15:52:00.000-04:0011:22 PM wrote"9:24. Are you sure you are a Duke P...11:22 PM wrote<BR/><BR/>"9:24. Are you sure you are a Duke Prof?"<BR/><BR/>Not sure why you're skeptical, but according to my recent paycheck, I am.<BR/><BR/>"If you are, is there anybody there in the administration that has the guts to put some teeth into this issue of the violations of faculty guidelines?"<BR/><BR/>If there is, that person wouldn't stand a chance. The curent administration is dominated by two groups: 1) militants pushing an agenda of gender, race, class; 2) those who are afraid of the militants. <BR/><BR/>"If you can't get your faculty to play by the rules, why do you think that the students should play by the rules?"<BR/><BR/>Good question. Ask those in charge, though I doubt you'll get a straight answer. <BR/><BR/>"There is a concept called "Lead By Example". Could we see any of that at Duke?"<BR/><BR/>We've been seeing it for 18 months, and longer. But I have a feeling you're hoping for a different type of leadership. Such a change will happen only when various constituencies (e.g., donors, parents, students, alumni) conclude that the current leadership has lost its moral authority. <BR/><BR/>"That's it: Vacuum. Somebody sucked their brains out there at the top. Was it their OWN university experience BEFORE Duke, that left them so without rational thought?"<BR/><BR/>Short answer: yes. This is a complicated issue that deserves an answer that is too long for this blog. However, here's an indication of one of the underlying causes that has "left them so without rational thought."<BR/><BR/>Rational thought is an attribute of the individual's mind. It's inherent in the concept of "individualism." However, the actual meaning and consequences of individualism are rarely taught to undergraduate or graduate students. I have heard individualism described by PC professors as code for the enslavement of blacks and women.<BR/><BR/>The particular faculty and administrators in question were taught (and choose to accept), as students, a steady stream of collectivism -- the notion that the group's wishes trump individual convictions and rights. Gender and racial tribalism (aka "group think") are merely the particular brands of collectivism that dominate Duke (and much of higher education). <BR/><BR/>Many administrators at places like Duke have a Ph.D. in the humanities or social sciences -- which fields are, to repeat, dominated by collectivism. It is rare to find an individualist Ph.D. in one of those fields. However, if you want better administrators (and better faculty behavior), find one. And then if you do, offer hazard pay and a long-term contract. <BR/><BR/>Duke Prof<BR/><BR/>P.S. Re Horwitz vs "Horowitz". Sorry. Finger cramp.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-74182871120819684912007-09-28T15:19:00.000-04:002007-09-28T15:19:00.000-04:00Duke will never learn. They have carved their pla...Duke will never learn. They have carved their place in history and have made a mockery out of truth, justice, the constitution and academia in the U.S.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-25302436703606744902007-09-28T15:11:00.000-04:002007-09-28T15:11:00.000-04:00Anon lawyer 1:13pm --Appreciate your response. I'...Anon lawyer 1:13pm --<BR/><BR/>Appreciate your response. I'll think some about what you have written re. the incompatibility of your position and S. Horwitz's.<BR/><BR/>Since the focus is on the Listening Statement in particular rather than the conduct of members of the Group of 88 and like-thinking faculty in general, the interpretation of the text of the LS is crucial. <BR/><BR/>We can imagine a hypothetical liberal (old sense) Duke administration that was willing to consider taking action against LS signers. Is the LS actionable in terms of the explicit and implicit contractual relationships between profs and the university? I think (fwiw...) probably not. One immediate question would be, "what is the most generous interpretation that could be put on the LS?" For whatever reasons, there have been few. Probably the best was by Rich Puchalsky, at 18 Sept 2007 10:09pm in the comments of <A HREF="http://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/2007/09/my-final-statem.html" REL="nofollow">this recent Acephalous post</A> (direct link <A HREF="http://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/2007/09/my-final-statem.html#comment-83268715" REL="nofollow">here</A>, if it works).<BR/><BR/>I don't find Puchalsky's interpretations to be compelling--but then, I'm not a jury or judge hearing a wrongful dismissal (or other torts) case against Duke. Much less 88 of them.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, there is the question of what weight would be given to Lubiano's invitation-to-sign email. And one wonders what's said in the earlier drafts of the LS that the Chronicle rejected. They would presumably be produced during discovery, and might speak to the intention of the LS signers.AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-24210011496337439352007-09-28T14:47:00.000-04:002007-09-28T14:47:00.000-04:00Two comments on Ms. Lubiano:Anonymous at 1:23 in h...Two comments on Ms. Lubiano:<BR/><BR/>Anonymous at 1:23 in her defense notes that "her former students have commented on what an excellent teacher she is."<BR/><BR/>One of the perks of being a college professor is that you are in a great position to make some people really like you. It's built into the situation. In an earlier time a more formal distance between teacher and student was a brake on the possible abuse of this situation. And a classical liberal arts curriculum had more to do with awakening thought than political action. Today it is much easier to become a kind of "cult" figure, particularly if you are tenured and in a small narrowly based and politically aligned department. It seems to me that these narrow "studies" based departments are particularly prone to producing, even almost requiring, a kind of cultish mentality. I'd be more impressed by student opinions of a great lecturer on Shakespeare or the Austrian School of Economics than student opinions about the teachers of these narrowly based "studies." <BR/><BR/>In a lighter vein, an musing typo at 6:01:<BR/><BR/>"If you make a faculty member's life as miserable as possible, do you really think s/he is going to be an infective professor?"<BR/><BR/>I would say Ms. Lubiano has already shown she is the Typoid Mary of the Duke faculty.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10267344755532285521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-65579264858798047062007-09-28T13:53:00.000-04:002007-09-28T13:53:00.000-04:00Steven Horwitz said... "I would not want to see AN...Steven Horwitz said... <BR/>"I would not want to see ANY faculty member singled out by name for ANY disciplinary action just for having signed [the Listening Statement]."<BR/><BR/>And here's where we part company, possibly because they're your colleagues and not mine. I think it was an obviously wrong thing to do. It ignored the presumption of innocence. It ignored the possibility that their prejudices might not always be correct. It added to the pain felt be students of the university who had done nothing wrong by the university's normal standards. It helped cost their employer a lot of money and poor PR.<BR/><BR/>And they signed it by name. Let them be called out by name as having done something very wrong.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Though we know what the intent was, the LS was sufficiently vague for me to be willing to treat it as an act of free speech,"<BR/>We've seen the cover letter. We know exactly what they meant. We know if they claim they meant anything else they're <B>lying</B>. Treat it as an act of free speech by responding with another act of free speech - public criticism by name.<BR/><BR/>And I do think monitoring their classrooms is appropriate. We don't know that they mistreat students on an ideological basis. But aren't they in a higher risk category for doing it than those who <B>didn't</B> sign? Assuming, as I think is reasonable that (1) ideologically based mistreatments of students is something that does sometimes happen (2) It is against both the stated rules and the self-interest of the university as a whole then I'd say that (3) the university should take steps to make sure it doesn't happen. Monitoring classes is a reasonable step. If I was designing a monitoring plan, it would cover 100% of those who had had complaints, a ramdom fraction of those who common sense indicated were likely to, and an even smaller random fraction of the rest of the faculty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-25828645069158968802007-09-28T13:13:00.000-04:002007-09-28T13:13:00.000-04:00To amac: This is 9:36 anon (and yes, a lawyer...at...To amac: This is 9:36 anon (and yes, a lawyer...at least a recovering one!). Awhile ago I had an exchange with Steve in which he clearly conceded that the LS and subsequent similar oral defenses of it were NOT protected by academic freedom because they were not...well..."academic". My recent response to him on the first amendment issue (not academic freedom...they are distinct doctrines) was simply to point out that the LS is likely defamatory under NC law in the context in which it was offered and it appears that Duke's own lawyers agree. As to your suggeestion that my analysis is compatible with Steve's, I disagree. I will take my anaysis a step forward (I should have done so in my prior comment...sorry): any Duke professor who speaks outside the protections of academic freedom to defame his/her own students and subject the University to substantial liability has committed an act of egregious misconduct which should result in the loss of tenure and employment. While I know that tenure revocation battles are protracted and ugly, as a Duke alum, I'd rather have my donation dollars go to THAT battle than to cover up the misconduct of rogue faculty through a series of confidential, multi-million dollar settlements.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-79611580073200022382007-09-28T12:34:00.000-04:002007-09-28T12:34:00.000-04:00KC ---10:50's comment is a lttle over the top. Per...KC ---<BR/><BR/>10:50's comment is a lttle over the top. Personal attack.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-55347008417424523672007-09-28T12:17:00.000-04:002007-09-28T12:17:00.000-04:00"... WITH WHICH JOHNSON HAS NO OFFICIAL CONNECTION..."... WITH WHICH JOHNSON HAS NO OFFICIAL CONNECTION."<BR/><BR/>I would submit that K.C. Johnson now has a better "connection" to Duke University than any of the Gang of 88. That is, if you define "connection" to be something other than "disconnection." MOO! GregoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-42801725711027583552007-09-28T10:50:00.000-04:002007-09-28T10:50:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-6087482078906877852007-09-28T10:31:00.000-04:002007-09-28T10:31:00.000-04:009:46 AMIt's only just begun.9:46 AM<BR/><BR/>It's only just begun.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-6225559716108115002007-09-28T10:27:00.000-04:002007-09-28T10:27:00.000-04:00To 1:23 -Yes, how do we best use WL's talents for ...To 1:23 -<BR/><BR/>Yes, how do we best use WL's talents for the good of the University? Let's see. I guess we should begin with a summary of her talents:<BR/><BR/>1. A writing style so thick she needs clarifying statements of clarifying statements.<BR/><BR/>2. An ability to rally whole university departments and programs and an army of professors to attack innocent students.<BR/><BR/>3. A true talent at writing provocative book titles. <BR/><BR/>4. The gift of being able to talk when she should be "listening" and request dialogue when she really doesn't want dialogue.<BR/><BR/>Where do you suggest she is best suited to explore her talents? She could take over for John Burness as Duke Minister of Propaganda, but I don't think that would be in the best interests of Duke University (close question, though). I look forward to your suggestions. MOO! GregoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-60010665615663089512007-09-28T10:16:00.000-04:002007-09-28T10:16:00.000-04:00"I think Professor Johnson should be concerned: Hi..."I think Professor Johnson should be concerned: His blog is being used as a site of attack by people who want fired a tenured faculty member at a university WITH WHICH JOHNSON HAS NO OFFICIAL CONNECTION."<BR/><BR/>By "site of attack", do you mean "a place where people are voicing their opinions, opinions which are not always favorable to the subject of the opinions?" Well, God, we can't have <I>that</I> going down in America. Everyone knows that the First Amendment protects free speech "until some anonymous person decides that the conversation constitutes 'a site of attack'."<BR/><BR/>Oh, and either your caps lock key needs repair, or you think it's especially significant that Johnson has no official connection to Duke. Why? I mean, seriously, why? Are you now claiming that no matter how outrageously faculty behave, no one should be criticizing them who doesn't have an offi-- sorry, AN OFFICIAL CONNECTION?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-596383307555571472007-09-28T10:12:00.000-04:002007-09-28T10:12:00.000-04:00Anon 9:36am lawyer --Prof. Horwitz has outlined hi...Anon 9:36am lawyer --<BR/><BR/>Prof. Horwitz has outlined his views on the Listening Statement as it concerns Duke's employment of its faculty signers. In particular, he has explained why signing the LS is not (and should not be) a "firing offense" in the context of Academic Freedom.<BR/><BR/>You outline your position on the LS in terms of civil liability. You anticipate that courts might look favorably on lacrosse players' claims of "false light" defamation/invasion of privacy, and possibly libel. This would be in addition to the bad publicity that such cases would generate for Duke.<BR/><BR/>I don't see a contradiction between Horwitz's claims and yours; in my opinion they are both probably true. <BR/><BR/>For anyone who believes that tenure-track faculty's contracts with universities are akin to at-will employment arrangements in right-to-work states, I recommend a review of the case of Prof. Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado.<BR/><BR/>Churchill's proven misconduct (to say nothing of other, credible allegations) makes endorsing the Listening Statement look like the actions of ethical giants. Yet UC is having the devil's own time in ridding itself of that creep.AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-7635282940703594082007-09-28T10:01:00.000-04:002007-09-28T10:01:00.000-04:00"Emmett Till wasn't lynched. He was killed by a si..."Emmett Till wasn't lynched. He was killed by a single gunshot to the temple, after being severely beaten by the husband and brother-in-law of a woman he had accosted."<BR/><BR/>"Lynching" denotes murder committed by parties with no legal authority under the guise of "justice" for crimes or transgressions allegedly committed by the lynchee. While hanging is certainly the means most associated with lynching, it is simply false to state that Emmitt Till was not lynched because he was killed by a bullet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-82840357261863417692007-09-28T09:52:00.000-04:002007-09-28T09:52:00.000-04:00steven horwitz @ 9:00With due respect, I have a di...steven horwitz @ 9:00<BR/><BR/>With due respect, I have a different perspective. The listening statement can (and should) be read in juxtaposition with the e-mail describing its genesis and intent.<BR/><BR/>In that context, it becomes much less vague and can be viewed as part of a conspiracy to deprive the students of civil rights,... for it was certainly intended to provoke action. Now, given the whirlwind of venom swirling around the lacrosse team at that time, how could any reasonable person not expect and not anticipate that this provocation would produce reactions, reactions that could, for example, taint a jury pool.<BR/><BR/>The Group of '88 picked a very visible venue for their statement. They didn't just mimeograph and hand out leaflets or organize a campus demonstration. They picked a most visible forum to voice their agenda statement. Importantly, that forum reached far beyond the faculty and students of Duke.<BR/><BR/>In the forum of the Chronicle, that Listening Statement can be read as a statement made not only to students, but also explicitly to all those employees working at Duke and the DUMC who, by virtue of political predisposition, would see it as a compelling appeal. Those same 'listeners' were potential jurors and it strains credulity to assert that the authors and signatories of the LS were not aware of that fact.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I think it was tantamount to a conspiracy to deny due process, a conspiracy born of deep-seated psychic energy residing in the Group of 88's collective social-system amygdala.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-39351428819550449182007-09-28T09:46:00.000-04:002007-09-28T09:46:00.000-04:00I think Duke University paid for the keycard matte...I think Duke University paid for the keycard matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-82305762517330107162007-09-28T09:36:00.000-04:002007-09-28T09:36:00.000-04:00Steve,Re your interpretation of the LS as protecte...Steve,<BR/>Re your interpretation of the LS as protected by "free speech": it appears that Duke's lawyers may disagree. Duke has already paid untold millions in settlements to the Duke Three, and also appears ready to pay more to the remaining 44. The first amandment does not protect defamatory statements. I have no doubt that the LS was a significant basis for the claims of the Three against the University. NC does not recognize the doctrine of "false light" (a defamation/invasion of privacy-based cause of action that subjects a speaker to potential liability even if the statements do not satisfy traditional definitions of libel and slander, but nevertheless cast the target of the speech in a "false light"). Thus, it appears that the University must have analyzed its potential liability for the LS under the more stringent standards of libel, and the subsequent oral statements (most notably, Houston Baker) parroting the LS under the standards of slander. While you may find ambiguity in the language of the LS, there can be no ambiguity in the context in which it was publicly presented. Despite the cover your ass misdirection of the "Clarifying Statement", KC's publication of Lubiano's LS "cover email" lays to rest any doubt about the motives of the 88 or the context in which the LS was offered. There is liability here for the LS and Duke's lawyers know it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-1103991259127728122007-09-28T09:00:00.000-04:002007-09-28T09:00:00.000-04:00Two quick comments:1. Signing the LS was not a "pu...Two quick comments:<BR/><BR/>1. Signing the LS was not a "punishable" offense, other than perhaps a general statement by the administration that faculty who made public statements that could reasonably be interpreted to have presumed guilt should have recalled "innocent until proven guilty." I would not want to see ANY faculty member singled out by name for ANY disciplinary action just for having signed it.<BR/><BR/>2. For faculty who went beyond signing the LS and who used their classroom as a platform to attack LAX players/students, or those who took to the media or other public platforms in various ways, then the various forms of punishment seem appropriate *because they violated the faculty handbook's clear language of treating Duke students with respect* etc.. That handbook is the faculty's "constitution" and violations of it should expect to bring consequences of some sort.<BR/><BR/>Though we know what the intent was, the LS was sufficiently vague for me to be willing to treat it as an act of free speech, but still a rush to judgment in how it was reasonably interpreted by many. Any actions beyond that get no such consideration.<BR/><BR/>And I'm sorry 123 if you view my comments as encouraging the most hysterically anti-faculty folks among us. Amac seems to be able to see the distinctions I'm making, and if others can't, I cannot be responsible for their inability to do so. <BR/><BR/>I won't blame KC for what commenters say, and I won't take blame for people who see my comments as license to go much farther than I think appropriate.Steven Horwitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470758334242360804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-63941167832351020032007-09-28T08:52:00.000-04:002007-09-28T08:52:00.000-04:003:45,Is a course in basic composition in your futu...3:45,<BR/><BR/>Is a course in basic composition in your future? You need one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-12973790865946396922007-09-28T08:16:00.000-04:002007-09-28T08:16:00.000-04:00The 88 have been disgraced and are laughed at on a...The 88 have been disgraced and are laughed at on and off campus. Like Nifong, many posters want to grind them into dust. It ain't happening. Yeah, they are dumb and vindictive but the end result makes them look like fools. Duke U paying settlements must make them grind their teeth and keep their heads down. I have no doubt they have been warned by Steele to "shut up," - that is the punishment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-39789117827638589942007-09-28T08:07:00.000-04:002007-09-28T08:07:00.000-04:00"What they did would never rise to the level of "t..."What they did would never rise to the level of "termination for cause," but it surely could, as violations of the faculty handbook, be grounds for other sorts of punishment.<BR/><BR/>You're the provost and president. What would you do, short of firing them?"<BR/><BR/>Everything I could. <BR/><BR/>I don't know what exactly the president can do, but he should be using everything he got, including public announcements that these people are both stupid and evil and he's sorry he ever hired them, reducing their power and influence wherever he can, and reducing the funding of anything they're involved with. <BR/><BR/>Brodhead has done the opposite.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com