Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Belcastro Letter to the Editor

A letter to the editor by Dr. Frank Belcastro, a former professor of psychology at UD, has been published in the Telegraph Herald.

Prof. Belcastro suggests that the University subpoenaed Jason Price as a means of putting preasure on Dr. Jeffries to withdraw the lawsuit. Belcastro notes, "If the university thought Jeffries' lawsuit was weak, it would not resort to victimizing an innocent person."


Anonymous Anonymous said...

The quote attributed to Smith was not in the original Des Moines Register article, in case anyone was looking for it. It is contained in the corrections section of the paper the following day.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Belcastro should have mentioned Price's First Amendment right of free speech but that might have distracted from the message.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I tried to access the letter but the link led me to have to register with the newspaper and then hunt for the letter. I obtained a copy of the newspaper and will reproduce the letter here:

In May 2005, the University of Dubuque fired professor Paul Jeffries in a dispute over his ability to potentially criticize the university. Jeffries sued the university for effectively revoking his tenure which the Board of Trustees had granted just weeks before. Several students felt that this firing was unfair and started an online blog, www.whatwendtwrong.blogspot.com, which presented all of the court and other relevant documents.

Recently, the University of Dubuque, subpoenaed one of those student’s telephone records, e-mails, and all communications, including those with 15 professors, the Internal Revenue Service, the Telegraph Herald (Dubuque), the Des Moines Register, and various other organizations--even those with the student himself, Jason Price!

If blog originators were legally responsible for comments made on their blogs, either by named persons or anonymously, the approximately 30 million U.S. blogs would have disappeared overnight. The question is: why is the university obviously harassing this student? The plot was revealed in the comment made by University of Dubuque’s Peter Smith, vice president of university relations, “There is a way to make all of this go away, and that’s for professor Jeffries to withdraw the lawsuit.” (Des Moines Register) Pressure on Jeffries through Price.

If the university thought Jeffries’ lawsuit was weak, it would not resort to victimizing an innocent person. The university’s mission statement specifies that “the University of Dubuque is committed to: . . . Community where diversity is appreciated and Christian love is practiced.” I don’t think so.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would be tempted to accuse Dr. Belcastro of a vendetta against UD except what he says is true!

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Departed Faculty said...

An important reminder to local readers of this blog: the Iowa Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) is holding a fall meeting on October 14 at Loras College in Dubuque, at which the AAUP national General Secretary, Roger Bowen, will speak. The meeting will start at 9 a.m. on the Loras campus, exact location TBA.

AAUP is the national organization that published the accepted standards for academic freedom at colleges and universities, and it is very interested in UD's policy of stifling dissent. This is a chance for us to be reminded that UD is badly out of step with other academic institutions. UD's policy of strict secrecy enforced by harsh penalties may work in the business world,but it suffocates the quest for knowledge that thrives at healthy schools.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 11:39:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd love to support the AAUP but find the organization to be a weakly organized front for frustrated liberal arts folks who have nothing better to do than complain.

Being dissed by the AAUP is a badge of honor, in my opinion, not a sanction with any merit.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The previous comment was posted, in my opinion, either by someone who is well connected and thus is smugly critical of those who feel powerless and band together for support, or someone who does not understand the importance of free speech on a college campus.

I speak as a scientist who knows too well how serious it is to face vindictive action by an oppressive administration.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I respect the rebuttal, but have always believed dissatisfied employees are never powerless as they can vote with their feet and leave the organization.

Forming collective groups worked in the early stages of the last century, but their union representatives lost ground towards the end of the same century.

The only power employees have is leave poorly run organizations and work for ones that are well run.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 7:29:00 PM  
Anonymous current ud student said...

Dr. Bullock,
The power to stop this is in your hands. Please listen to a current UD student and settle this thing. All people are talking about are the bad things. PLEASE SETTLE THIS.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 9:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Leave poorly run organizations. How nice. How unrealistic. In ten years, there were only three opening in my field. I changed my resume to emphasize administrative department head. Even here the opening were skimpy. We would all leave poorly run organizations if we could. The reality and the expectations are not always the same.

I agree with the comments on AAUP but it is the only organization out there. We should try to make it stronger instead of abandoning it.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AAUP would not be weak and its censured list would be effective if the professoriate in the field would not accept positions at the institutions that are on the list. Then the institutions would be forced to accept ethical standards. Unfortunately, necessity (these may be the only places they can obtain a position) or ignorance of acceptable ethical standards prevents some professors from not accepting position at these institutions on the censured list.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the commentor who wrote, "The only power employees have is leave poorly run organizations and work for ones that are well run."

Of course it is true that part of an employee's power rests in his/her mobility. But most people (thank God) find themselves caring about the place they work and how business is conducted and how their fellow workers are treated.

People are not simply economic units who ought to make decisions on a pragmatic basis; we are people with important and meaningful relationships, attachments, and commitments. As we go about our lives and vocations, we often find ourselves driven by the desire to make our little place in this world a bit better... very often we aren't willing to tuck tail and run.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for professors to unite under the AAUP if the aim is to create workplace standards which allow people the much needed security of a good job. People's lives get disrupted when they have to leave a job (especially an academic appointment) and move to a new area. Families must uproot; friendships oftentimes suffer; life in general becomes difficult. And these are the things in life of most concern.

Thinking of labor unions (etc) in the abstract allows us to gloss over these very real and important factors. As is often the case, it is more fruitful to think of actual people leaving their actual jobs, attempting to sell their actual home, finding a job that is actually better, and so on and so forth. I can think of a few such actual people at UD who have made, or are in the process of making, such moves. And from what I gather, it seems painful.

-Former UD Student (Class of '05)

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 11:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is not Belcastro's only letter to the editor in which he holds the administration's feet to the fire whenever they do not tell the truth. Unfortunately, he may be the ONLY faculty member over the years to have done so. They rest of the faculty members? Cowards!

Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:18:00 AM  
Anonymous An Interested Observer said...

An observation that many individuals who choose college teaching are somewhat idealistic is unlikely to be challenged.

In recruiting faculty, UD emphasizes its Mission Statement heavily, no matter what the field of study. It is not surprising, then, that many new faculty take the stated mission at face value and become involved in activities, such as teaching World View courses, that are designed to support the mission. Surrounded by like-minded colleagues, these people begin to believe that they are making a difference in the lives of students, and their commitment to the institution deepens. They do not look at their work as only a job.

When such a faculty member is faced with the ugly reality that Bullock and UD's Board are not student-centered and pay only lip service to the stated mission, the choices available are not attractive.

Idealism calls on the individual to carry on and work for improvement in the institution from within, (not just complaining), in spite of the morally objectionable direction coming from above. Leaving, on the other hand, indicates an unwillingness to fight for the things in which you believe. The "cut and run" response, if you will.

Thus, when Bullock addresses a faculty meeting and states, in effect, "If you don't like the way we do things, you have the option to leave", the individuals most likely to follow that path are those who did not take the mission seriously in the first place and have only a limited commitment.

It would be much better if UD stated its priorities honestly so that new employees knew what type of organization they were joining. The argument will be made, of course, that UD needs the dishonest Mission Statement to continue attracting students and donors.

Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:10:00 PM  
Anonymous A Concerned Alumnus said...

Perhaps it is time to point out the exact cause of some of Jeff Bullock's ruthless actions.

When the 'Plan for Transformation', which resulted in the elimination of many majors and the termination of many professors with numerous years of service, was under consideration as a "proposal" in the spring of 1999, an attempt to influence UD's Board was mounted. Concerned faculty and students sent a letter questioning many of the proposed changes to UD alumni.

It was the sending of that letter that Jeff Bullock stated "he is unable to forgive".

What, then is the role of alumni, according to Bullock and the Board?

Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Concerned faculty and students sent a letter questioning many of the proposed changes to UD alumni" in the Plan for Transformation. Of course Bullock is unable to forgive--forgiveness would be a Christian response by a genuine minister (Bullock, let it be known, is an ordainer minister!). The Plan for Transformation told the alumni the truth--that most of the faculty would be fired, that over 60% of the majors would be eliminated. What the alumni were not told was that the Board of Trustees and its Executive Board conceived the Plan for Transformation as a method to put down upstart faculty. How dare they have any independence to speak! According to the Faculty Handbook, the only way to fire tenured faculty or any faculty was to eliminate the major field in which they taught. So the Trustees eliminated the majors! The scorched earth policy also included firing almost all of the secretaries for they were more than sympathetic to the faculty. The hell with having majors for students! The hell with having almost all of the faculty being full-time faculty who would spend time with students both academically and advising! The hell with having most of the faculty holding Ph.D.s in their fields for the benefit of students! UD is the only university in the United States to have sued its faculty! Look it up in the Chronicle of Higher Education. UD has now been called the Northeast Iowa Community College--eastern branch but with three times the tuition. The firing of upstart Jeffries should be no surprise to those who know the recent history of UD. Lots of buildings--buildings do not a university make. What a sad, sad condition for what was a fine university with a fine faculty. Let us pray.

Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Departed Faculty said...

It would be good to know if the sad series of events at UD that we have been discussing actually amount to an orchestrated campaign by UD's Board to take complete control. In other words, when B. Meriwether was put in charge in 1996, was the end-game already being planned? The steps involved bringing in a hatchet-man type of academic leader (Kessler); preparing a new, grand-sounding Mission-Values-Action Statement (headed up by Bullock) for cover; attempting to get rid of faculty rights as stated in the old Faculty Handbook through a lawsuit; following that failed attempt by having consultants and lawyers prepare the Plan for Transformation, to be executed by Kessler; tapping the right people (picked initially by Kessler) to produce a streamlined Core Curricum in tune with the new Mission Statement; and using the new faculty after the 1999 purge to push through a new handbook prepared by University lawyers that would eliminate meaningful faculty roles in decision-making as well as due process.

All of this certainly happened, but was it actually a package deal that was to a major extent premeditated by the UD Board?

UD Board members declared from the stand during the lawsuit that major new donors would emerge if the faculty role could be diminished (think of Myers and Wendt).

It is likely that I am giving too much credit to the UD Executive Board by raising this question.

Friday, September 29, 2006 2:11:00 PM  
Anonymous current ud student said...

DOes anyone know where I would find out who is on the board of directors at UD?

Friday, September 29, 2006 5:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Concerned Alumnus said...

For many years the practice has been to list in the back of the University of Dubuque College Catalog, after course listings and other academic information, the names of current faculty and current members of the Board of Directors (Trustees).

Does the current college catalog not list the Directors? If not, it would represent an important change, one that was not explained.

Friday, September 29, 2006 10:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone know how the members of UD's Board are appointed?

Saturday, September 30, 2006 11:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Former Student said...

I believe that there is a nominating committee consisting of Board members who search out and cultivate new members, largely on the basis of wealth. Once this committee nominates a new member (who has agreed to serve), election by the full Board is assured.

The Board is thus self-selecting.

At one time, there were Board members who had served for years and were no longer capable of making the large annual contribution that is expected; these have been culled out.

Saturday, September 30, 2006 12:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

current student,

You can find the 2004 directors and their addresses on the IRS 990 forms that are posted on this site. Go to http://whatwendtwrong.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_whatwendtwrong_archive.html and then scroll to the very last post on that page.

Editors, this is about the time of year that that information was posted. Do you suppose the 2005 forms are available yet?

Sunday, October 01, 2006 3:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Concerned Alumnus said...

In view of all the interest in UD's Board, I have an anecdote to share that may indicate where the values of the Board lie.

A year or two after the Transformation, I attended a spring Commencement ceremony, the annual occasion where degrees are conferred on graduates. Caps and gowns are worn by participants, and the graduates are treated with respect and celebration, as family and friends look on with pride and satisfaction.

Following the ceremony, cookies, cake, and punch are provided for graduates and their guests under the Laube belltower. Faculty and administrators circulate among the families to share personal congratulations with graduates, often posing for pictures with them. This seems a fitting end to years of effort and sacrifice, an appropriate way to honor the most recent group of the University's lifeblood to complete their studies.

Things were different during the specific Commencement that I have in mind. Instead of the one or two honorary degrees that are customarily awarded as part of the ceremony, several were awarded, all to Board members.

The striking difference this particular day took place after the ceremony. Instead of mingling with the other graduates and families, the Board members who had been honored hurried off to a special function, accompanied by top administrators.

A large canopy had been erected in the courtyard that is located just north of Alumni Hall (Old Chapel). An impressive buffet was spread out on tables, and a harpist was playing. The entrances to the courtyard were guarded by campus security so that none but invited guests were allowed to enter. Of course, college graduates and their families could see that this event was taking place.

Some commented that the contrast obvious in the lavish function, since it effectively diminished the attention paid to college graduates, was insensitive. I felt that the occasion went beyond insensitivity, that it communicated clearly the new priorities of a Board 'liberated' from faculty input.

Apparently, the UD Board now provides such special treatment off-site. At least that way, students and faculty do not witness the two-tier approach to honors that is practiced.

Sunday, October 01, 2006 3:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And what is the probability that ALL of the members of the Board of Directors deserved honorary degrees? And all at the same time? And for what extraordinary accomplishments? Probably for the Plan for Transformation that eliminated almost all of the faculty, almost all of the secretaries (to be honest, they were not part of the plan--the Board just fired them), most of the majors, sued the faculty, and retained the "brownie" faculty--some of whom are still there. Bush must have noticed and copied its methods by awarding medals of honor to his proven incompetence!

Monday, October 02, 2006 1:15:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, his proven incompetents!

Monday, October 02, 2006 1:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did Hammer ever make a motion?

Monday, October 02, 2006 10:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Recent Graduate said...

This is all said and good. The discussion of thigns is always good to the judmgent of things. The thing that scares me is that I see all this stuff and have been having a hard time finding work and it makes me wonder that the cash i took out in loans was even worth it cause my school which I do love has been falling apart since I even got there.

Monday, October 02, 2006 11:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Departed Faculty said...

An update on the AAUP gathering at Loras College on October 14: the meeting will be held in St. Joseph's Science Hall, starting with registration and coffee at 9:00 a.m. The talk by Dr. Bowen will be at 9:30. Non-members are welcome to attend.

Remember, even if you are not interested in AAUP as an organization, they were the first to publicly challenge UD's treatment of employees in implementing the Transformation. The publicity that AAUP is able to generate is also valuable in calling attention to the UD policies that caused our concern.

Monday, October 02, 2006 1:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I realize this may be "off topic" and yet perhaps not. How is that the UD student that fell from a window at a party and now sadly has died, has not made national news? Yet another alcohol related death of a college student. The dwellers of the house the young man fell from are UD football players, not one of them suspended from play. This boy was a minor, the house is NOTORIUS and the pictures on Facebook are unbelievable. I need someone to make some connections here, where is the university? Washing its hands because it's off campus? *Sigh*

Monday, October 02, 2006 5:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's the second student at UD to die within the year; altho I think the first one died of natural causes.

Monday, October 02, 2006 7:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The losses of students due to these circumstances ought to serve as wakeup calls to the rest of student body that think they are invincible.

I wonder if UD will give the tuition $ back to the family, or keep 'em.

Monday, October 02, 2006 7:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

young people will always drink and do stupid things..sadly they never seam to get the idea thru thier head. I am assuming the first death was partial due to alchol because they finally decided to make homecomming 'dry' which surprises me cause its not just of age students who are drinking it up at dances.

as for the money being returned.. it would be nice but most likley will be lost in the shuffle..

Monday, October 02, 2006 8:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No matter what policies would have been in place, the University could not have prevented what happened to Sean.

Monday, October 02, 2006 11:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Things bloggers should be looking for to post on this page.

Find any of the following online or at the courthouse.

Send to the blog editor.

--Jeffries unemployment update. UD is still fighting this and the last update I did was 6 months ago. Someone needs to look online for newer information.

--copies of the motions. The Price subpenia was part of several motions in court that day. We need to post copies of all of the motions. Price squashing, UD contempt and Jeffries
compel to provide.

--Copy of the court ruling. All we know is thatthe judge Monica something tossed the subpenia, someone go to the courthouse and get a copy of the transcripts.

--Any newer and crazier motions by Hammer, Jensen (UD Philosophy) and Simon (Criminal Justice). After subpening their fellow employees communicatyions, have they made any other motions?

other stuff


Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would be nice if we had a place to discuss this and other various topics at ud without getting in fear of getting in trouble.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:59:00 AM  
Anonymous Departed Faculty said...

Anyone that is still a part of the University organization is forced to accept the fact that it is a controlled society. You disagree with the official line at your peril. UD Board members, with their business background, feel that this is appropriate. It boils down to this: they feel that since their money keeps the school running, their word should be law.

This means that the institution has become the personal instrument that a very few people are using in an attempt to project their values into the world.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can tell that US Board members with a business background are running things. Consider an ad in the Chronicle of Higher Education asking for a candidate with a background in physics and sociology! Anyone with an academic background would know how silly that is and how impossible to find. A Ph.D. in physics with a background in mathematics is reasonable but not the above. Of course it is best to hire someone with a Ph.D. in physics and another candidate with a Ph.D. in sociology. Ah, but business people know best--run it like a business, they say. Their utter ignorance of the academic and the relationship among instructors is profound.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006 1:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

thats one of the problems with things in the world. I remeber when i was younger everyone was all over lawyers.. but really alot of business people are just as bad..

Thursday, October 05, 2006 12:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Concerned Alumnus said...

Are the UD lawyers still stalling on the Discovery requests by Jeffries' lawyer?

It is obvious why UD wants to keep its internal discussions secret, but remember, their lawyers attempted to use a subpoena to gain access to private communications.

Is this arrogance or ignorance or both?

Thursday, October 05, 2006 12:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is a case of we are a big university and we deserve to know what 1 student is talking about with people about matters.. it is that in thier minds the greater good for them is better than that of Mr. Price and his associates.

Thursday, October 05, 2006 1:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Comment: The UD web page, for as much money as they rake in, is the worst one I've ever seen. Nice summer photos in October...
Isn't there a CGI dept. that has students that actually do web pages for internship? Crazy...but what else is new? Nice buildings...lousy web page.

Thursday, October 05, 2006 5:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The UD webpage has nothing to do with the CGIM department.. It is a standard position with the people that handle promoting UD.

Thursday, October 05, 2006 10:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just another way that UD mistreats its students: after they commit themselves to attend UD, they have no other recourse once they are here but to sign a statement that they will not park on Dubuque streets surrounding UD--a sop to the few neighbors that complain. Everyone else, citizens of Dubuque, citizens of the United States, students attending other local colleges--all have a legal right to park on those streets except you know who. It appears that signing the statement when they have no other recourse except to leave and give up a semester or a year of college just might be illegal. Too bad an attorney, possibly a student's father or mother. does not this as a pro bono (free) case to liberate UD students who drive. And UD never has enough parking but still refuses to build second-story parking above the present parking lots. And lack of parking has been a problem for over 25 years or more. Thank God the students live in a Christian community--imagine how much worse it woud be it they did not!

Thursday, October 05, 2006 11:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They do seam to try and milk as much money from peope as possible

Friday, October 06, 2006 10:26:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where is the student council in this parking fiasco?

Saturday, October 07, 2006 12:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SGA I imagine is trying to get through the muck known as administration. They did a survey, now they will present it but have no real power to act upon it. It's up to the "team" assembled by the leaders to care about parking....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!

Saturday, October 07, 2006 9:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would the area next to the new building seem like a perfect additional parking lot? Too simple? Too much money? Too little regard for students? Faculty always has parking, admin. folks always have parking. How about students get first shot at the convenient lots. Most staff people are there for a full day. Students come and go from jobs, off-campus living, student teaching.

Saturday, October 07, 2006 9:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Bloggers,
Yes parking has always been a problem at UD and yes drinking has been a problem at UD but let us get back to the heart of the what wendt wrong blog site: the administration problems that plague the UD campus that has caused corruption in how UD treats its own staff/faculty and how the administration abuses their power. There are many other problems at UD (drinking,parking, etc.) but those are common problems at other schools as well. As for the school's website, that is another issue that is somewhat related to administration. Yes the school has a CGIM department but the school does not let the CGIM department run the site because UD's administration delegates it through their PR people and administration to an off campus company. It's just another example of the school's administration spending money which they could save or spend in other ways (scholarships for students would be a good way). Please, let us focus on the original issue this blog began with. Also, I would urge fellow bloggers to attend the Wendt conference and maybe we could bring up our concerns about administration at Ms Lynn Brewer's speaking event on Wednesday, October 25.

Saturday, October 07, 2006 2:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was a Q&A after the main speaker @ last year's Wendt time. That Q&A was a fiasco.

This year there is a reception immediately after the main speaker. I doubt there will much in the way of meaningful Q&A mainly because this year's speaker is void of ethics in the first place. Her claim to ethical fame only occured after Enron got caught; not during her employment w/Enron.

Now she is holier than thou and collect big sums of money for speaking engagements.

Saturday, October 07, 2006 8:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well yes the Jeffries Problem is the main topic but it is the hardest for us to even be a part of because students and 'poor' alum have no say.. (yea i know they still dont have a say_

Saturday, October 07, 2006 8:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The way the administration treats its students is another example of its abuse of power. Faculty and staff are not the only persons on campus--students are also there and the main reason for UD's existence. A despot is not just a despot to part of his minions but to all of them. Students are relevant on this blog as additional examples of callousness and hypocrisy by the president and his Board of Directors. After all, has the Board protested the president's actions? Then they are implicated.

Saturday, October 07, 2006 11:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is there interest in meeting Roger Bowen at Loras College (St.Jos.Science Hall) on Sat. at 9 a.m.?

Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:06:00 PM  
Anonymous current ud student1970 said...

The plauqe with Garfield's name is still in Blades hall. I took a picture of it today.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006 4:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The continued presence of the Garfield plaque is interesting. It is known that Garfield flagrantly plagiarized a speech in front of colleagues and board members. It is known that Jeffries was somehow involved with this serious breach of ethics (of course to breach ethics implies Garfield had ethics in the first place, but this is another discussion at some other time). Based on information contained in this blog, Jeffries seemingly avoided confronting Garfield even though Jeffries was being encouraged to do so by administration. These discussions branded Jeffries as being "not a team player."

Later, Jeffries ends up in a contract dispute. At this point in time, Jeffries is viewed as being problematic employee and contract #1 is replaced by contract #2 which Jeffries refuses to sign. In turn, Jeffries is asked to clean out his office while being labelled as someone who refused offers of employement.

Jeffries later files for unemployment compensation and after multiple appeals, UDs protests against paying Jeffries are denied.

Finally, Garfield formally apoligizes to colleagues and indicates he has given back the award, given at the ceremony where he plagiarized his speech. Yet, in spite of all the rhetoric from plagiarism thru this very response, the Garfield plaque remains. I can only conclude that administration has NOT accepted Garfield's apology or give back and once again, administration has missed an opportunity to proactively demonstrate an ethical response...either to Garfield's situation or to Jeffries' case. What is even more astounding is that UD continues to pay real dollars in defense of unethical behavior. How does all this correspond to the Wendt initiative. It seems to me that the administration is not walking their talk.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006 6:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bullock decided to leave Garfield's name on the plaque. Rumor has it that he suggested that removing the names of individuals with ethical problems would leave few names remaining.

A real vote of confidence in previous winners!

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 3:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For once, Bullock is right! Winners are chosen by the administration, usually the vice-president and the president which means they are the ones who cowtow to and support the president. It has nothing to do with their qualifications. The Board members were all told that a past winner had slept with black basketball players but that was of no import to them. The president's choice must prevail!
The real quality teachers are those chosen in yearly elections by the students in a ballot-box vote. They are listed as Teacher of the Year or some such title and their names are or were on a placque in the Student Union quick-lunch gathering place. Look them up.

Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Departed Faculty said...

A brief report on the AAUP meeting today:faculty from many institutions in Iowa contributed to a discussion of the importance of academic freedom and shared governance in the college setting. Roger Bowen high-lighted classic cases in which faculty members challenged violations of those concepts, and Paul Jeffries was included. He was recognized as a faculty "hero" for taking a stand based on principle.

Saturday, October 14, 2006 3:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for your update for those of us who were unable to make it, departed faculty. That's good to hear.

Monday, October 16, 2006 10:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So where do things go from here?

Monday, October 16, 2006 12:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Concerned Alumnus said...

The wrongs to Paul Jeffries will be the focus at a trial.

In the meantime, continuing to cite examples of mismanagement, inexcuseable treatment of employees, and neglect of the educational needs of students, will bring attention that Bullock and Smith do not want. Since the Wendt ethics conference and Homecoming are soon to take place (late October), now is a good time to use this blog to "hold their feet to the fire". Spread the word of this blog and the truth that it is sharing to as many alumni and UD supporters as possible. Shedding the light of day on the unethical behavior being practiced at UD can only help.

A key element that the Telegraph Herald editorial established is that when the University lawyers used a subpoena against the blog as part of their attempt to protect the gag order, they unknowingly broadened the case from an academic freedom matter to a First Amendment (Freedom of Speech) matter. This makes University actions unacceptable to many more people.

Monday, October 16, 2006 1:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Departed Faculty said...

Bullock's courage, or lack thereof, was brought into focus by information picked up at the recent AAUP meeting in Dubuque.

After being terminated as part of the Transformation, two faculty members (math and chemistry) who had been tenured took their case to the national AAUP. These were UD faculty members who had been serving as department chairs and were heavily involved in University programming. Their case was based upon the fact that the University continued to offer substantial coursework in math and chemistry, that would have provided them with teaching loads, and assigned the courses to contingent faculty instead. This made it clear that "program elimination" under the Transformation was a thinly-veiled method used to get rid of certain faculty members.

Anyway, when the national AAUP sent an investigating team of three to Dubuque to gather information, the team held interviews at a local motel. When Jeff Bullock finally showed up for an interview, he was wearing a bullet-proof vest. He obviously felt threatened by the three faculty members from across the country who made up the team. So his claim after the University was censured by AAUP that the AAUP is weak and ineffective is not consistent with his actions at the time of the investigation. He obviously feared for his life -- in his mind, the AAUP team took the form of a "hit squad".

This type of paranoia is oddly similar to what we have learned about Saddam's behavior while he was in power.

Friday, October 20, 2006 11:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Departed Faculty said...

Bullock's courage, or lack thereof, was brought into focus by information picked up at the recent AAUP meeting in Dubuque.

After being terminated as part of the Transformation, two faculty members (math and chemistry) who had been tenured took their case to the national AAUP. These were UD faculty members who had been serving as department chairs and were heavily involved in University programming. Their case was based upon the fact that the University continued to offer substantial coursework in math and chemistry, that would have provided them with teaching loads, and assigned the courses to contingent faculty instead. This made it clear that "program elimination" under the Transformation was a thinly-veiled method used to get rid of certain faculty members.

Anyway, when the national AAUP sent an investigating team of three to Dubuque to gather information, the team held interviews at a local motel. When Jeff Bullock finally showed up for an interview, he was wearing a bullet-proof vest. He obviously felt threatened by the three faculty members from across the country who made up the team. So his claim after the University was censured by AAUP that the AAUP is weak and ineffective is not consistent with his actions at the time of the investigation. He obviously feared for his life -- in his mind, the AAUP team took the form of a "hit squad".

This type of paranoia is oddly similar to what we have learned about Saddam's behavior while he was in power.

Friday, October 20, 2006 11:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you think the faculty members leading discussions on topics like honesty and transparency duing the conference on character will suffer from a guilty conscience?

Perhaps the type of character-building advocated under the Wendt Initiative does not include conscience.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 2:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a faculty member, I can attest to my uncomfortable position of leading discussions at the Wendt Conference that are related to honesty, fairness, and justice when my supervisors lack these essential traits, given how Dr. Jeffries and Jason Price have been treated.

You can call me a hypocrite if you like, but I was socially pressed to accept my role in this conference. At least, that is my excuse.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why punish innocent faculty for administrative behavior?

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 11:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If your boss (the academic dean or vice president of academic affairs, in this case) tells you to lead a discussion at the conference, that is what you do--with a hint of "or else." Speaking up means being replaced by a part-timer or two. After all, what does the administration care about quality instructor and quality instruction--only power and obedience. Most of the faculty members must have their resumes out in the market.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 11:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That kinda sucks becuase UD does have alot of great faculty. They seamed to bend over backwards to help a student.

Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear University of Dubuque Community,

Please join me on Friday, October 27, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. in the auditorium of the Charles and Romona Myers Center for a Major University Announcement.

Jeffrey F. Bullock

Gather for the King! If you have jobs or classes ignore them, just be there as I stand on my balcony overlooking my kingdom and share some news that you cannot live without!


Thursday, October 26, 2006 5:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How does a student or anyone know if the University has great faculty or mediocre faculty or poor faculty? Comparison and standards. Ph.D.'s are what percent of the whole faculty? 75% is considered low. Are they teaching most courses in their field? (Garfield is listed in seven departments! Seven!!). How many faculty are full-time faculty compared to the whole faculty? Should be near 90%. How many faculty have office hours where they are available to students? Two hours a day make for 14 hours a week. Check the faculty schedules on their doors. How many faculty have been Fulbright scholars?

Those are standards. Compare the UD results with Loras and Clarke college faculties. You would be amazed at the differences.

Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can someone report on what he says.. id like to know

Friday, October 27, 2006 1:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well according to what I hear its about the new fitness center or something.. proably will be up before the preforming arts center.

Friday, October 27, 2006 1:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No big deal. Bullock announcement's was about a new fitness center. Guess sports are more important than culture yet again. Whatever happened to a performing arts center? Guess that went into a parking lot.

Friday, October 27, 2006 1:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People like parking...and with how students are at UD a preforming arts center would collect dust.

Friday, October 27, 2006 2:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you are right to state that an arts center would collect dust. for example, a guy down the hall plays basketball, but is failing remedial english and came to me to see what his options about dropping the course were.

Friday, October 27, 2006 3:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you must be kidding when writing about failing remedial english. UD wouldn't recruit someone who couldn't pass that course would it?

oops! I forgot, the person is an athlete. from my vista athletes think they are priviledged. i cannot understand why athletes even have to go to class or buy books.

Friday, October 27, 2006 3:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

they'd spend the money better if it was alchol.

Friday, October 27, 2006 5:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's a major clue. If you have performing arts, you get performing arts students. If you build jock shops you get jocks. I would never classify all athletes in the same pool, but they aren't especially doing themselves any favors on campus by being lousy students for the most part.I am SURE professors are fed up with the hand holding and "study groups" for the teams.
The guy with the bucks to build this new building probably specified what he wanted built. We need Woodward's, they GET art.
Why can't the performing arts center be built at the same time? The culture at UD will remain the same until it is built. There are some really smart students, some really wonderful professors, and really, we need to acknowledge them. UD needs more majors, a more diverse population, and higher standards for admission.

It's noble to admit students who need a hand up BUT can they graduate and get a JOB? A major in "Health and Wellness", or Psychology with no master's, or Biology with no master's equals no work. How about more EDU? At least people can go to work and there are standards set up by the state for admission.
It's all just ludicrous.

Friday, October 27, 2006 6:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wait theres culture at UD...

Friday, October 27, 2006 10:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Accepting students who need a hand? There was a study done at UD of these students. All but two were gone by the end of the sophomore year. UD took their money and shoved them out. Has been doing this for years; calling them challenge students or opportunity students or other names--but still taking their money knowing they will not be there after two years. Ethical? What would Wendt say?

Friday, October 27, 2006 11:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


It makes me feel bad for them, but they do blow the chance they get and then blame UD cause they said they never had a chance.

Saturday, October 28, 2006 1:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Remember, only the administration looks at the qualifications of these "opportunity" students before they are accepted. Then they become the faculty's responsibility. Many of these individuals have learning disabilities, and they are led to believe that UD will give them special help. The center available for this service has no employee qualified to provide this help, and it is seriously under-funded and under-equipped.


Saturday, October 28, 2006 7:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well remeber the good christian ideal of he who helps himself...

Sunday, October 29, 2006 2:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Happy Halloween

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 3:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reflecting on the University of Dubuque's goal to be "one of the best small private universities..by 2008", I came up with some observations. First, a widely-used ranking of best colleges and universities is that prepared by U.S. News and World Report. Important criteria used in the ranking include persistence of students (freshmen making it to graduation), percentage of alumni providing financial support, percentage of faculty with Ph.D.s and other indications of faculty quality, and selectivity in admitting applicants. Unfortunately, UD fares poorly in all these categories.

If only schools were ranked according to the degree of luxury displayed by the presidential office complex! The atrium in the Myers Center has been compared to the lobby of the Trump Towers building in New York.

Now, that's an idea! One would think that The Donald would fit in very well on the UD Board. His priorities seem to line up very well.

Friday, November 03, 2006 3:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't it a shame that we can't vote to send UD a message the same way a message was sent to Bush!

Friday, November 10, 2006 9:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While I sincerely hope UD settles out of court, does anyone know if a Jeffries trial date has been set?

Saturday, November 11, 2006 7:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone on campus should stay away from Bullock until he cools off about the election results! The only bad outcome is that Nussle's loss means that Bullock won't be leaving UD for a job in Des Moines -- that would have been our gain!

Monday, November 13, 2006 3:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chris Heindel's letter to the editor in today's TelegraphHerald is a clear and powerful statement of the fallacy in judging a college by the number of new buildings constructed.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 10:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The letter to the editor by Chris Heindel will soon disappear and not be available so I am copying for your use here:

Things not so rosy at UD
1204 East Burlington St., Iowa City, Iowa

As 2005 graduates of the University of Dubuque, we read with interest the Nov. 6 editorial ("UD thriving years after transformation"), which heaped accolades on the university for "creating a vision that makes people eager to invest in the school," and which described the University as having "recovered" from its past problems.
For those who forgot, these problems included the suspension of academic programs, a lawsuit against the faculty and the termination of several tenure contracts.
The editorial seems absolutely at odds with the Sept. 17 editorial in which the TH criticized UD for subpoenaing communications between a student, Jason Price, and a number of professors - some of whom have since taken jobs elsewhere. As the TH indicated at that time, the university's actions and policies stifle both professors' and students' free speech.
The recent editorial also seems to overlook the fact that former professor Paul Jeffries, who claims that his tenure was unjustifiably revoked for objecting to such policies, is suing the university.
Tenure revoked? Professors leaving? It sounds like business as usual at UD.
The administration of our alma mater has focused on creating a decadent facade rather than devoting energy and resources to substantive improvements in the university and the treatment of faculty.
The TH should know that the health of a university cannot truly be determined by strolling around its campus. One must examine what is being done behind closed doors in faculty meetings, in classrooms, in administrative offices.

Thursday, November 16, 2006 12:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said, Chris and Haley.

Thursday, November 16, 2006 9:46:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eleven questions I'd like to have the answers to:
1. Why have so many faculty left UD in the past four years?
2. Why did 1/2 of the president's cabinet leave in the past two years?
3. Why is Garfield's name still on the awards plaque in the lobby of Blades Hall?
4. Why does the alleged phrase in faculty contracts pertaining to not being able to criticize UD still exist?
5. Why did UD take legal action against an alum (that was turned-down in court)?
6. Why were the names named in the alum's lawsuit selected?
7. What is the status of the lawsuit by Upper Iowa?
8. Why is there an absence of reporting on the fiscal condition of UD?
9. Why are administrators who were at UD during the "transformation" still obsess about "how far UD has come?"
10. When will veteran administration members realize that most faculty were not around for the "transformation?"
11. Why - really - is Dr. Jeffries no longer employeed by UD?

Thursday, November 16, 2006 7:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thats alot of questions...

Friday, November 17, 2006 11:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it all boils down to control. Executive Board members have invested a lot of money, time, and energy to achieve total control, and they will protect it at all costs!

Even a hint of challenge puts that control at risk, in their minds, and they will not tolerate it.

If Bullock showed any signs of going soft, he would be quickly removed.

Friday, November 17, 2006 1:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

God forbid that a college be controld with the intrests of students and education...

Friday, November 17, 2006 3:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

God forbid someone teaches you to spell before you post on a blog.

Friday, November 17, 2006 8:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

New from the AP:

College presidents' compensation soars amid growing demand


Monday, November 20, 2006 8:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now you did it, you have given Jeffery Bulluck a goal for his next physical year.

Monday, November 20, 2006 1:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bullock already outstrips by far the earnings of presidents at comparable colleges. I hope he has applied for positions at respectable schools, and has been deservedly laughed at. One appropriate development would be for him to pay some of the settlement costs, when it comes to that, for the Upper Iowa lawsuits, out of his inflated salary. Fat chance!!

An interesting thought: how will UD make the switch to a true competitive search, when they finally get rid of Bullock? His sorry story cost the place credibility with regard to searches.

Monday, November 20, 2006 5:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The results of Regis High School in New York's annual fund drive: 55 percent of the alumni contributed over $4.4 million. Obviously, treating students with dignity and generosity results in the same treatment by its alumni toward the institution. At UD last campaign, the alumni gave the lowest amount of all groups asked to contribute. There is no need to ask why.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 11:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Discouraged Alumnus said...

It is almost as if Bullock & Co. have taken away the normal rights of an alumnus. Is there a way that we, as alumni, could organize a revolt to take back the Alumni Association and replace most of the Alumni Board members who currently serve as advocates of the administration?

Thursday, November 23, 2006 11:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any reaction to the above suggestion from other alumni?

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 10:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since people have mentioned on this blog that they're no longer receiving alumni mailings, I just thought I'd pass this on . . .

Join us for the
1st Annual Alumni Christmas Reception!

Friday, December 8, 2006

The Gathering starts at 5:30PM @ the Babka Bookstore

20% Alumni Discount on Bookstore items

FREE GIFTWRAPPING for bookstore purchases

Christmas Card photos taken with Sparty

Hot Chocolate & Cookies

Annual Christmas on the Quad Performance @ 7:30PM in Blades Hall

Family and Friends are welcome!

RSVP to today at udalumni@dbq.edu or 563-589-3705.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 10:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you kidding? Why would I want to get my name/address on the mailing list I've worked so hard at getting off of.

Signed: An Alum

Wednesday, November 29, 2006 6:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Note that this is the FIRST Annual Alumni Christmas Reception. Where has it been all of these years? Why should I punish myself and be in the company of President Scrooge--or is it Grinch? But then, it can't be Scrooge for he turned generous; it can't be the Grinch for he had a heart!

Wednesday, November 29, 2006 11:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard that the trial has been delayed. Editors, do you have any information for us?

Monday, December 04, 2006 7:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Minutes from SGA meeting Tuesday December 5th; albiet horrible notes that are almost unreadable. Watch the Belltower...the President has decided that he may serve alcohol at his "gala" and his cabinet agrees. SGA (Student Government Assn. is LIVID)Obvioulsy the decision to have a "dry" campus does not extend to the Pres. or his cronies.Almost impossible to believe...almost.

f. Gala (6:32)- M. Pfarr moves to extend discussion 10 minutes, L. Boehm seconds. Approved. The Gala is a Christmas event and a thank you to donors and faculty. There’s food, etc. When Homecoming was at hand, SGA voted to having no alcohol on campus along with knowing there would be consistency. Friday night the execs created a letter to send about our concern with this issue. T. Keefe moves to send a strong letter of disapproval and disappointment to President and Cabinet re: decision to violate the campus policy prohibiting alcohol consumption. 1) Good faith belief that policy at homecoming would be followed at Gala. 2) Death of student directly related to alcohol. 3) Blatant inconsistency. 4) Extremely poor example for students. I am completely hurt by it, and we need to convert back to how the administration is running this place. I never ceased to be amazed on this campus. SGA needs to put it’s foot down, and say absolutely not. It is specifically known as the President’s Christmas Gala. Try to phrase things different, because it is not against policy for them to serve alcohol and the President can change policy. K. Buhr- I think it is a blatant jerk thing to do. Blatant character? That is questioning the character of the Cabinet who made the decision. What if a staff or faculty member brings a student as a guest and then that student consumes wine.? I think we should take out the part with the student death, that was his own decision. President Bullock seemed kind of lost with the whole alcohol issue, I think he knew something needed to be done right away. I think that maybe that we could talk with him in trying to get alcohol back into off campus events. C. Arensdorf amends the motion and wants an email letter sent to staff/faculty/students kind of like a heads up on the situation, L. Boehm seconds. Kari denies the amendment. E. Turner moves to also send the letter to the Belltower, M. Pfarr seconds. L. Boehm moves to extend the time for debate for 5 minutes, K. Buhr seconds. Approved. This should be the exact same letter. Call to question. All in favor to amend it to the Belltower, approved. T. Keefe wasn’t allowed to mention in the BellTower that the Gala is wet per President Bullock. Call to question. We will redraft and will vote on this tonight, we are voting on the general feeling of the letter. Voting to send this letter to the President, the Cabinet, and to the BellTower

Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From Xeroxs I received in the mail:

In the 1999 Transformation Plan, UD cut more than half of its majors and cut 14 of 39 faculty positions. So says an article in the May 14, 1999 Telegraph Herald titled "UD OK's Faculty Cuts." The article goes on to quote Susan Smith, vice-president for university relations as saying that UD hopes to improve it 39 percent graduation rate by tightening its academic focus.

Smith was merely echoing what President Bullock said in an April 14, 1999 Telegraph Herald article titled, Student's Protest UD Proposal. Bullock stated that the cuts would improve the 39 percent graduation rate.

Note this 39 percent graduation rate. What happened to the graduation rate for those students that began UD in 1999?

According to College Opportunity Online Locator (http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds): For full-time undergraduates who began program in 1999:

The overall graduation rate for UD over the six years beginning 1999 was 30 percent! It went down! (It was worse over the 4-year period: 21 percent.)

Not fair. How did the other DBQ colleges fare over this same time period for this same group beginning in 1999?

For Clarke College: 59 percent. (4-yr = 54%)

For Loras College: 69 percent. (4-yr = 59%)

The cut in faculty and majors did have an effect--it reduced the graduation rate.

Ah,but UD has so many new buildings!

Slogan: Another salary raise for Bullock!!

Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For those wondering what nces means in the previous blog and how reliable it is:

The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), located within the U.S. Department of Education, is the primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education. Pretty reliable.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That cut and paste from the Student Senate meeting is very interesting. I am interested to see how Bullock is going to handle this. Nice move on their part.
Has anyone else heard about this?
I do know there was some concerns from students earlier in the year about a new alc. policy on campus.
There was NO alc. served at Homecoming, even for alum.
I Guess they pull out the old bottles only for the big donors? Again, it is all about the money at UD!

Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am participating in a study group through my church. For the purposes of the study, primary virtues include truth, justice, and grace. These are all expressions of God's love in the Biblical sense. In contrast, secondary virtues get into issues such as performance, time management, profit, and sales methods. It is a proven truth that secondary virtues only work in the long run if they are deeply rooted in primary virtues.

If I consider the University of Dubuque with this model in mind, it is obvious that the primary virtues are lacking at the core. The emphasis is on appearance, or image, not on being.

The conclusion is obvious: failure is only a matter of time.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006 1:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder if the student newspaper, The Belltower, could be considered to be a public medium? If so, the SGA minutes noted above, when they appear, probably would constitute a violation of UD employee contracts that forbid criticism of UD at the risk of salary.

Any faculty member associated with either SGA or The Belltower better watch out!! And students should be thankful that they are not required to sign such a contract upon enrolling! Oops, I didn't mean to give the administration an idea!

Wednesday, December 06, 2006 1:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, I am impressed by the students who are behind this uprising against Administration.That takes guts.
I am excited to see how the Belltower is going to handle this. When does the next issue come out?

Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does someone have the NCES figures for recent years? UD would have us believe that they've "turned things around", and thus the persistence to graduation should now be much higher!

Remember, all the changes that we have seen are part of a much-publicized 10-year plan (1998-2008), so results should be reaching their peak now.

Thursday, December 07, 2006 3:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These ARE the NCES current figures. If the students began the program in 1999, then the 4-yr graduation rate of 21% would be for the 2003 graduation; the 5-year graduation rate of 28% would be for the 2004 graduation; and the 6-yr graduation rate of 30% would be for the 2005 graduation. The 2006 figures have not yet been compiled by NCES.

Additionally, NCES shows the retention rate [this is the percentage of first-time bachelor’s degree-seeking undergraduates from the previous fall (2004) who are again enrolled in the current fall (2005)] to be 66% which means that 34% or over 1/3rd of the students did not return the next year at UD.

Friday, December 08, 2006 11:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why aren't the figures in for those who began in 2000? Because their 6-yr graduation rate (the best rate) would be for 2006 and those figures have not been compiles, as noted, by NCES.

Friday, December 08, 2006 11:49:00 PM  
Anonymous concerned faculty member said...

Got this in the email system. Thought it would be nice to share with the community. Well done SGA!!

In the wake of the recent difficulties University of Dubuque (UD) has experienced due to alcohol, the Student Government Association (SGA) is concerned and dismayed over the decision to serve alcohol at the President’s Christmas Gala.

In September, SGA was notified that alcohol would no longer be served at any campus event where students would be present. This included events such as Homecoming, Founders Day Ball, and Greek Ball, which were typically held off campus. In addition to those events, Alumni Association was notified that they could not serve alcohol at any event, on or off campus. In response, SGA voted to support the decision as long as consistency was respected campus wide, despite disagreeing with it.

It recently has come to the attention of SGA that alcohol will be served at the President’s Christmas Gala. The President’s Christmas Gala is the annual event hosted by the President to thank faculty and staff for their time and commitment in the past year. It is an opportunity to celebrate the University’s growth and recognize the contributions and good will of donors.

SGA questions the message this decision sends to students. While this decision is not a violation of any policy, it is a violation of community values; a matter of character. Despite the fact that alcohol will be served at the Gala, we encourage all UD community members to respect our campus being dry. Student Government Association hopes that students do not model their future decisions after this lapse in consistency displayed by University decision makers.

Student Government Association
University of Dubuque

Sunday, December 10, 2006 6:28:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is apathy slipping away at UD?

Sunday, December 10, 2006 11:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow.. Why didn't they just send a email that says.. Fuck you students. We dont care about you. We take your money and give you false hopes...We don't care you are putting all your chips in one basket and hoping that UD will help with those goals.. We gonna have your drink on and light our cigars with your student loan bills.

Sunday, December 10, 2006 10:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

M. Pfarr is a dork

Monday, December 11, 2006 4:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Folks, let's respect what this blog is all about!

Monday, December 11, 2006 4:52:00 PM  
Blogger Tony Keefe said...

I think people need to know there information before they post it on this blog. Everything up until this point has been relevant information that I think students need to know and it is all well written. For someone to come on the blog and write in the "F" word and then the next person calling out a student, that has nothing to do with this blog is unsatisfactory. The SGA minutes, and the SGA letter probably shouldn't have been put on this blog, it has nothing to do with our man, Paul Jeffries. To take away from that focus, I agree with the previous comment that we need to respect what this is about, and if you have a problem with someone, or whatever, you need to come out and talk to that person instead of hiding behind anonymous. I believe that you CAN hide behind anonymous if you are scared of getting subpoenaed, but to call out a student, who has nothing to do with this site, other than having his name in some SGA minutes, hiding behind anonymous, and personally attacking him spells out what type of person you really are.

Monday, December 11, 2006 7:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was not attacking him, just saying that I think that he is a dork.

Monday, December 11, 2006 7:53:00 PM  
Blogger Tony Keefe said...

Well, anonymous, congratulations for using this web blog, for your personal enjoyment of making fun of others. If you go to the main page of this blog, you will read what the purpose of this blog. If you want to tell someone that he is a dork, send an email, or sent him an instant message. Facebook him for God's sake. Oh wait, that would require you to put your name on something.

Monday, December 11, 2006 8:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kudos to the SGA for taking a stand.

Of course taking a stand is NOT what administration has done as it relates to the alcohol policy.

Actually, I may be wrong in criticizing the administration. It has taken a stand and it's something like this: vote no booze when it suits 'em; vote to have booze when it suits 'em.

So, I stand corrected. Administration has taken a stand. It's that the "stand" varies w/the situation.

I for one, do not support the perception of being wishy-washy. Instead, I believe that once the no-booze policy was announced, administration would have been far better off if it adhered to its own abstenance policy.

Now, administration is saying that it wishes to demonstrate responsible drinking. Hah! There's no such thing. Demonstrating responsibility would mean: following one's own rules...but then, I've demonstrated that administration is following its rules...and they are being made up to suit the situation.

No wonder younger folks criticize their elders.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:48:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's the status of the Jeffries trial? I her it was postponed. Any insights as to who was not ready to go to trial?

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tonite is the big fru-fru (Gala) where the penquins (administration in tuxedos) walk aroung looking important as they show off the new Smith Hall (as differentiated from the old Smith Hall). Of course the most controversial issue is the fact that booze will be available, even though UD has an informal no-booze policy and administration cannot figure out how to deal w/binge drinking among the students.

But, this subject is not the purpose of the Blog. The Jeffries issue is and I understand the trial is now scheduled for some time in January, 2007. Does anyone know the date?

I won't however, hold my breath that UD will be any more ready to go to trial in January than it was in December...let's see, Jeffries left UD in July/August 2005; filed a lawsuit later that fall and here we are 10 zillion months later, still trying to "do what is right for all concerned."

From my vista, what would have been right was for Garfield to resign in the first place, and for UD to settle for less $$$ out of court. I hope Jeffries soaks UD, given UDs handling of his situation and the subsequent supena for an alum. But, then, I'm an idealist who has little concern over where the next $$$ are coming from.

Signed, an alum who no longer donates to UD

Friday, December 15, 2006 3:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No longer deemed deserving of an invitation, I drove by the scene of the Gala. That's right, it was moved to the new Myers building, in surroundings more suitable for the rich and powerful who are now invited.

Would Christ have been invited to such an occasion, in his time?

What is the meaning of success, as now defined by the University of Dubuque?

Friday, December 15, 2006 11:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the 90's, excellent professor Tom Eitter was fired by the university and he sued. He prevailed and was awarded an undisclosed amount. The university claimed it had no money but the judge told it to find the money. Eitter was paid and it was suspected the university got rid of the nursing program to find the dollars. Evidently, getting rid of administrators was not an option.

The university has clearly violated the standard procedure for firing a tenured professor because it never instituted that procedure. Let's hope the judge socks it to 'em. Maybe they can sell some of the unnecessary embellishments to the newly constructed Myers building. Or use some of the fat salary given to Bullock for his unwise decision.

Saturday, December 16, 2006 12:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is the meaning of success, as now defined by the University of Dubuque?

Hmm thats a intresting question. Some might say fancy new buildings so they can make people belive that the hard piles of money is worth it. I belive part of it but I think its also the long held reglious tradition of having your cake, inviting those who need some cake, then making sure no one gets any except a few overbloated hams.

Saturday, December 16, 2006 1:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A brief stop at the visitation for the widow of Dr. Paul Laube reminded me that there was a time when UD Board members cared about people. Paul, a local surgeon, was one of the best. He honestly wanted to know how faculty were doing.

Is it too much to hope for that people of means like Paul will once again step forth?

Thursday, December 28, 2006 3:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

UD has lost at least two fine profs. I would not want to put up with BULLock's crap either.

Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just read that one of UD's star basketball players did not return to school after Christmas. Why am I not surprised?

Friday, January 05, 2007 12:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did he not know the way back to campus?

Friday, January 05, 2007 5:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Finding his way back was not the problem. Admissions personnel forgot to tell him that cursive writing would be better than printing his answers to essay questions...that is, if he knew the answers in the first place.

Saturday, January 06, 2007 7:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do most visitors check only the most recent posting w/comments ?

There are recent comments under other postings.

Monday, January 08, 2007 12:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I almost never check the older posts for new comments. Thanks for the tip.

Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Second-hand info: It seems that Dr. Paul Jeffries was on campus yesterday, was seen and the info relayed on high, and soon he was escorted off campus. It seems that UD workers are on notice to look for Jeffries and become part of a spy system. What a waste of time! Power must be shown by the insecure! Truly a Christian message of compassion and forgiveness! And from a church-related institution.

To me, it would be a badge of honor to be escorted from university grounds for I would know for certain I was on the side of truth and justice.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 11:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hint: I copy the number of comments for each section down on a piece of paper. When I visit the website, if the numbers have changed, then I know new comments await.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 11:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I keep a mental note of the number of comments on the most recent post, so I know when there are new comments, but I hadn't thought about checking older posts.

Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I may be in the minority here, but IF Dr. Jeffries was on campus in Jan 2007, I would interpret that as being stupid and in poor judgement.

What in the world does he have to gain from appearing on campus? If he needs to see someone, he could easily arrange to meet the person at a neutral location. Dubuque is not so big. Folks only need travel 5 minutes to get across town...except during rush hour.

I consider Dr. Jeffries a friend, but His appearance, if in fact he did, only inflames the situation...for folks on both sides of his case.

Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As I understand it, Paul Jeffries is required to sign in at a log book when he is on campus, and he does come on campus to use the library (a compliament for the library). If he signed in, also indicating that he planned to visit Goldthorp (if that's still the name) to see friends, the decision to send security after him was made by someone in the administration based on the log. Perhaps there was no snitch, just the usual attempt by administration to put pressure on Jeffries.


Is it a sin for current faculty to consider themselves "friends of Paul"?

Thursday, January 11, 2007 2:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a sin as determined by St. Jeffery. There is no higher authority other than God. Like the Blue's Brothers, St. JB is on a "mission from God."

Thursday, January 11, 2007 4:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good to see the students are getting back into town.

to the Blog Dude. We need new material.

Thursday, January 11, 2007 7:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Friday, January 12, 2007 10:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More likely, the decision to send for security was made by an administrator who was informed by someone working in the library. Administrators do not periodically look at logs for information but require others to do so for them. There was an intermediary.

Saturday, January 13, 2007 1:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the inquirer; you can be assured that former faculty do leave comments, but anonymously. As in the past, without anonymity, they would not write. In the past the only faculty member to take the administration to task regularly and faithfully was Dr. Belcastro, except for a few letters by Dr. Lindsay, and maybe one by Dr. Scharnau. In the past means in the past 25 years. A safe but cowardly and second-rate faculty as far as professionalism goes.

Saturday, January 13, 2007 1:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard a rumor that the trial has been rescheduled for July. Can anyone confirm?

Sunday, January 14, 2007 7:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Taking the administration to task "faithfully" is a questionable phrase. You must choose your occasions to speak out carefully if you want to have effect. Also, this plan to constantly attack helps explain the "enemies list" mentality of the administration. Stated animosity on either side detracts from the possibility of resolution in a situation and improvement in the relationship.

Monday, January 15, 2007 12:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Stated animosity on either side detracts from the possibility of resolution in a situation and improvement in the relationship." Jeffries is not involved in this website so it cannot affect resolution. If you previous writer means between bloggers and the administration, there is no relationship involved--thus no resolution sought. This criticism is trying to strike down straw men that don't exist.

Sunday, January 21, 2007 11:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting, this blog is talked about in class rather often. It is surprising to me how mnay of my fellow students know about it and post on it. Many of us wonder which other seminary students (now that Mr. Price is gone) are involved. All in all, this is very, very strange for the university to have to deal with.

Given those comments, I wonder about two big issues. Will we work to help UD's image once we begin our work with local churches? I doubt it as the pain of the undergraduate faculty and students is now felt by the seminary students. Not (yet) the faculty, but that is coming. Brad's distant leadership will come back to haunt us all in the next few months. Next who really is calling the shots at UD?

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who is calling the shots at UD? Not the Board of Trustees who only meet four times a year and rubber-stamp whatever is placed in front of it. It is the Dubuque mafia--the Board of Directors who run the university in between meetings of the Trustees. And if some Trustee or two mildly objects--they are ignored. Bullock is just a talking head who has no ethics.

Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As to who's running UD: The inner circle consists of John Butler, Joe Chalapty, (both very successful businessmen, but who live by outdated people skills), Dana Bullock, a seasoned educational and administrator expert - ha!) the Smith's, (the people that built Dr. Bullock's public relations image) and last but not least, Dr. Bullock (the person who has raised over $100 million for buildings, but zilch for educational/teaching advantages).

Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You forgot to add...raised 32 million for character education, but terminated Dr. Jeffries over a series of disagreements pertaining to ethical issues, but kept Professor Garfield, the plagiarist.

Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:22:00 AM  
Anonymous confused said...

I cannot for the life of me figure out why garfield is still at UD. The story of him getting caught is well known. Like giving back an award made everyhing ok. His name is still displayed on a plaque in blades hall.

Saturday, January 27, 2007 5:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He brings in money.

Saturday, January 27, 2007 5:40:00 PM  
Anonymous confused said...

He may bring in money, but why do they have a chaeracter program?

Saturday, January 27, 2007 6:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wendt is giving money for it...and the press of fine tuning people with the character stuff is good for the school. It is good for them to parade people around that they have picked to be examples of UD's moral and ethical teachings.. Sadly those people probably learn a lot to what it means to be good Presbyterians and the rest of the campus.. well you know..

Saturday, January 27, 2007 10:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gaarfield's students pay 100% tuition--all other students get some sort of help; this means more money for UD. But Garfield's outstanding characteristics are two: (1) He is at the forefront of presenting and defending the UD propaganda line and (2) when Bullocks says "jump"--he asks "how high?" Example: He states the 1999 fired faculty were a discordant bunch--but he was not a member of the faculty before, during, and immediately after they were dismissed! Is that called precognition? Or is it lying to present the administration in a favorable light? He is amoral. Another of many examples: He led the new faculty in voting to dismiss faculty chairperson Dr. Julia McDonald (even though she was still a faculty member, she was stripped of all teaching duties)without informing the new faculty that this was in violation of the faculty handbook. What Bullock wants, Bullock gets! Garfield--such a NICE person!

Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To clarify the previous comment, the vote was to dismiss McDonald as faculty chairperson--not as a faculty member. But can you imagine: a highly regarded, tenured mathematics professor is told she has no classes to teach to be sure that familiar faculty are not on campus and as punishment for leading the faculty in opposing the administration! This not only cost the university money for it had to hire a mathematics professor but students lose a faculty member with years of experience in her field.
But then, who cares about students when revenge and retaliation can be so sweet.

Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"those people probably learn a lot to what it means to be good Presbyterians and the rest of the campus.. well you know.."

NO, I DON'T know. Would the blogger care to clarify? The Wendt character students and the seminarians are the only decent people on campus? Look around. Better yet, get to know people. In the midst of the problems there are honest students, with real goals. There are GOOD professors, with honest intentions. If you're not a "good Presbyterian", can you be a good Muslim? Catholic? The issue is Jeffries and what happened to him.

Sunday, January 28, 2007 8:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe that person gets tired of the bad apples there are in the bunch. Sure they are many people who have nothing to do with Wendt program and the seminary that are good people. But the experience with the bad apples you forget those people. To me it seems that the issue of Jeffries is just one of many with UD and I truly believe that most of us here are not bashing UD but wanting it to be a better educational institution.

Monday, January 29, 2007 9:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you want UD to be a better place, and you "forget" the good people, then may I suggest that tomorrow you say hello to people you don't know? Do a random act of kindness? Talk to a "bad apple" to see if you can find common ground? Thank a good student? Thank SGA? Thank the people in the library that work so hard? A professor? A teacher? Maybe you could think of an activity during which the university could all find some peace and the "good apples" would surface for you to see! This blog is not intended to help UD, it is intended to (rightfully) defend Paul Jeffries, and critcize the crap that goes on. The university is divided, no question, but maybe the "bad apples" are the seminarians that don't speak to any other students? Maybe the "bad apples" are the athletes? Perhaps they are people from CGI? How about the idea that the "bad apples" are every person that cares nothing about the people they walk the Quad with each day and don't bother to say hello to? Now THAT would begin to cover it. Get to work!

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the trial will soon begin for the Upper Iowa U. lawsuit against UD. While it has nothing to do with the Jeffries case directly, it represents another important situation in which Jeff Bullock and his administration, through cavalier and short-sighted mismanagement, damaged UD's credibility and put the institution at risk of significant financial loss and negative publicity.

Let us hope that these cases of arrogance, questionable courses of action with no input from faculty, and downright bungling, will add up to the point that serious reconsideration of the value of Bullock and his crew will take place.

Thursday, February 01, 2007 10:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, UD is getting a $22 million Chlapaty Recreation and Wellness Center in the near future! Unrelented building of buildings. Go UD!! What you don't see are endowned chairs of departments--money placed in a saving account or stock by a donor with the proceeds going to pay the salary of the chairperson--because there are none. Students would be better served by the endowed chair which would attract highly qualified faculty than by a recreation center. Evidently Bullock and his fund-raising department were not able to get the donors to the last three buildings--or any other donors--to set aside a small amount of the money for the library or the administration building or the recreation center for endowed chairs. Or even books for the library. Or a small fund for student services which certain students could tap for money for toothpaste or a trip home to Chicago (or somewhere) on a holiday or an emergency. But an administration with hubris would never think of things like that--only true leaders would.

Friday, February 02, 2007 10:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is the current Jeffries trail date? These things have a way of being postponed and I am not aware of the current date. Thank you.

Sunday, February 04, 2007 2:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've heard it's sometime this summer. What's up, editors? No new posts in four months.

Monday, February 05, 2007 8:20:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Early July.

Monday, February 05, 2007 9:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Unhappy Alumnus said...

A basic concern for many alumni who follow this blog is the treatment of UD employees by top administrators. Think of the importance to students of frontline employees like those in food service, the Registrar's Office, and the book store. Students depend on these people to be helpful and courteous. When major changes are forced on these good folks from above with no input or consideration, it is a clear indication to students that a supportive, caring environment is absent at UD, in spite of what all the brochures claim.

Friday, February 09, 2007 4:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a former faculty member at UD, I can testify that a supportive, caring environment was NEVER present at UD. When I left UD and went to teach part-time at Northeast Iowa Community College, at the first faculty meeting, the president thanked the faculty for teaching at NICC. It was then that I realized that in all my years at UD, I had never been thanked for teaching there.

Just one illustrative incident: When a faculty member complained to then President Peterson that salaries were so low that his wife had to get a job, his response was, "We expect that."

Saturday, February 10, 2007 1:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a former faculty member at UD I too, can attest to the absence of a supporting, caring environment. In truth, the opposite is in place.

Administrators do not trust faculty or other employees. Information is withheld. The President used to hold annual "state of the University" sessions where among other things, the budget including revenue and expenses were ID'd. Such meetings no longer occur.

To counteract the continuously growing lack of trust, administration has now convened a task force to ID ways to build community. Community and trust within a college or university cannot happen until the top administrator begins to be trusting and acting in ways that suggest such behavior is warranted.

I might suggest one significant method to begin rebuilding community might be to settle the Jeffries case out of court.

Monday, February 12, 2007 1:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Neither the Board of Directors nor the president will change their attitude toward the "hired help." What is needed is a new Board of Directors (not the Trustees who are clueless) and a new president. The Presbytery should withdraw its support for these two instead of spinelessly rubber stamping all it does. Then it should send out a call for volunteers for the Board of Directors and institute a nationwide search for a new president (as was NOT done for Bullock who was dictatorially declared the best person for the job). Clean house. The remedy is simple but will is not there for the job.

Monday, February 12, 2007 11:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Monday, February 12, 2007 11:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the person or persons who want to build community: You CANNOT legislate community; instead, you must demonstrate it!

Words will not build community; actions will. I agree with a former posting: Act to settle the Jeffries case out of court. Such action will be a step towards changing the perceptions of dictatorial actions and offer a Christian act of contrition. But alas, this desired action will probably not be taken and the lack of community at UD will continue to be the reality.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 1:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Warning: Attending UD can be dangerous to your life. A 3rd student in less than 12 months has died...someone was found dead in their dorm room.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 1:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

just as the Bush administration suppresses negative information about the war in iraq, UD administration has been successful in suppressing information about the recent death of a student on campus. nothing has appeared in the local newspapers...not even in the obituaries sections.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A crisis does not make character; instead, it reveals it.

I am an alum from the late 60's who recently learned about this website and who has spent the better part of a week sifting thru the historical accounts of this blog.

It is sad, that UD has resorted to legalistic "he said, she said," arguments. When I was a student at UD, a Christian attitude permeated the place. Sure, there were jerks who "cut chapel," but all students and employees knew the deal at, and history of UD. That is, everyone knew it was a Christian university and that employees and students espoused such beliefs.

Of course, religious pluralistism has compromised such perspectives, yet UDs mission claims its heritage in the (Christian) Reformed Tradition. It is sad that the current president has succumbed to legal means to settle an obvious dispute that may very well have origins in pride.

Pride in NOT wanting to aggressively offer punitive action towards professor Garfield who apparently violated one of the sacred issues in the academy - he copied someone else's work. From what I gather, Dr. Jeffries was brought into the Garfield situation and became a "persona non-grata" by UD standards when he simply blew the public whistle.

The literature is repleat with whistle blowing stories and their sad endings, but nonetheless, Jeffries ethical principles stood up.

President Bullock's did not; but the President is the President and ultimate actions about tenure/no tenure escalated into "he said/she said" arguments that in a Christian arena, should not have happened. But then, is UD a Christian arena?

I am troubled by the absence of a clear Christian theme being offered by UD. It hides in the Reformed Tradition, which is clearly Christian, but is not understood by folks outside the faith.

Well, all of this meandering leads me to, until UD gets its act in order, I will no longer write any checks in support of the organization. Besides, given the amounts of monies Bullock has raised and buildings that have been built in recent years, UD does not need more $ to fund bad character issues that lack an moral/ethical foundation.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 6:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Never underestimate the power of this blog nor who reads it. Once it was revealed here (two blogs back) that a UD student had died, the news appeared in the local newspaper a day later. The TH always protects the managerial level in this city for they are part of the good ole boy network.

Saturday, February 24, 2007 12:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good ole boy.. isnt that the theme song to the dukes of hazzard.

Saturday, February 24, 2007 7:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From Wikipedia:

The good ol' boy network describes a system of social networking and perceptions alleged to exist prevalently among certain communities and social strata in the United States. Although the term originated in the South, these networks can be found throughout the U.S. and the rest of the Western world. . . . generally to reinforce traditional power structures over any other elements in the society.

Saturday, February 24, 2007 11:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pride is definitely the main characteristic of Jeff Bullock. How does he reconcile his attitude and behavior with biblical teachings that he studied during his training for the ministry?

Saturday, March 03, 2007 3:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bullock's Ph.D. is in Communications--not in Religious Studies. He is more secular than religious so his training as a minister is secondary. He is defined by his deeds and they are not pretty. Hubris more than pride but let us hope that pride commeth before a fall.

Sunday, March 04, 2007 12:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can we best support the voiceless good people who still work at UD??

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:32:00 PM  
Anonymous college sports recruiting services said...

I am pleased to see these boys were dismissed or at least Derrick, and possibly his brothers quit due to such incident. I personally am actually sick of all the publicity this boy gets everyone praising him as such a great athlete.

Friday, February 26, 2010 1:28:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

free web page counters