Saturday, September 16, 2006

Judge Quashes Price Subpoena

Today, the Telegraph Herald reported that Judge Monica Ackley has quashed Jason Price's subpoena. The article goes on to say that the University's attorney plans to file a motion regarding that ruling next week.

We were overjoyed to hear that Price is in the clear--at least for the time being.

One element of the article, however, has caught our interest: Kari Koch, president of the UD student government, was quoted as saying, "We don't feel that it's appropriate for a student government association to take a stand one way or another in regard to the case." Koch supports the SGA position by stating, "We have an incoming class of 470 students this year, and they are 470 students who don't know there is a lawsuit (pending) right now and don't know who Professor Jeffries is."

We vehemently disagree with the SGA's position on this matter. Many of the students who are or have been involved with this blog entered UD only years after the infamous "Transformation." During our time at UD we became increasingly aware of the fact that the administration's actions during those difficult years had a profound and ongoing effect on the campus. Witness, for example, the high turn-over rate of faculty members, the heavy reliance on contingent employees, the sudden "retirement" of such professors as Robert Miller, and, of course, the Jeffries ordeal. It might be objected that these cases or trends are all unrelated, but we are not convinced. Professor Miller, for example, was a staunch critic of the administration during certain stages of the Transformation; when the appropriate time came (only a few years ago), he was forced out of the University. In that case, there was a clear impact on students such as ourselves who came to UD well after the Transformation had become "old news".

The fact of the matter is that UD administrators seem to be creating a very odd work environment for faculty. And that surely has a profound impact on current and future students. These students should feel not only entitled, but obligated to take a stance on issues of such importance.

At most institutions of higher learning, the student government fulfills the role of advocate and voice of the students, and that typically entails government representatives passing opinions on university policies and becoming involved in university business. For example, the Indiana University Student Association's mission reads: "IUSA is a congregation of Indiana University students that work to protect student rights, enrich student life, and improve Indiana University. Students join together to voice common concerns, hopes, grievances, and most importantly, to take action to realize an even stronger University" (emphasis added).

In regards to UD, the important question isn't whether or not the students (new or returning) do, in fact, know or care about the Jeffries affair. The real question is, "ought they know?" We, of course, think the answer is a clear and resounding, "Yes." And to that end, the student government can serve an important role.

NOTE: We wanted to clarify one point that may be lurking in the back of our reader's minds: our criticisms of the University's administrators are not directed at the faculty at large. We have nothing but respect for many of the faculty members, and we think that one of the University's redeeming qualities is the fact that it has some very dedicated professors who go out of their way to meet student's needs.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

While it's true that most involved came to UD after the 'transformation', it's after-effects are most certainly felt by all. I would love nothing more than to have a major in history, and that has been stripped of myself and others by the decision for this major among several others to be dropped from UD's curriculum. I agree with the post for today stating that we as students need to stand together - and be supported by our Student Government. I have been a student at UD since 2002 and was very surprised that I had to ask the question of my fellow students what happened to Professor Jeffries only to have them not even know. I did not find out until reading the front page of the TH. It is saddening because the Religious Studies/Philosophy faculty is small to begin with, and now it is even more diminished by the loss of Professor Jeffries. He is and will continue to be missed.

Saturday, September 16, 2006 10:56:00 PM  
Blogger Tony Keefe said...

I agree with SGA's stance. I don't believe that they are saying they won't support student opinions, but I feel that it is impossible to speak on something like this on behalf of the "entire" student body, when 400 people don't know about it. I love Jason Price to death, and I support him and Prof. Jeffries. I think it is unfair for SGA to make a blanket statement for one side or the other. They should on the other hand, push students to stand up for what they believe is right or wrong. I would not want SGA to say the student body does not support this battle because I do support it. I also believe that there are very few students on campus that were here last year that still don't know what is going on. Maybe handing out literature on the case, and getting people involved would spark student government to make a stand one way or the other. I don't think you can speak on behalf of 400 people that don't know about this case. I would like to hear feedback on this because I do find it quite interesting. Thanks.
Tony Keefe-Senior English/Sec. Ed. Major

Saturday, September 16, 2006 11:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess I think maybe the issue is whether the student government is supposed to just represent student opinions, or whether the student government should actually GET students involved. Its pretty clear that the freshman won't know who Jeffries is or know anything about UD's history, but maybe they should know about it. I mean, new students always come in and old one's leave, but there is always overlap... if you want to make UD better, you have to get the new students involved in putting the preasure on the leaders, then when they are sophmores and juniors or whatever, they will be involved.

The freshman need to know that there are problems at uD. That doesn't make it a terrible place to come to school, it just means there is work to do to make it better. That's the way the whole world is, so we might as well start as students trying to make a change.

Saturday, September 16, 2006 11:37:00 PM  
Blogger Tony Keefe said...

I agree with the previous post. I think SGA should be student advocates and information providers, then get a consensus and say 40% or 50% of the student body support so and so. I agree. Thanks.

Sunday, September 17, 2006 12:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I did not know anyone in the World Trade buildings, does that mean I am not involved?

Sunday, September 17, 2006 8:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone have the ability to print the whole gag clause from the contracts of UD employees? I hear a great deal about it but wonder what it really says.


Didm't UD ask for communications between a former student and current students? How can the student government (or student newpaper) not have an opinion?

Sunday, September 17, 2006 8:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looking at the subpoena list on the previos posts links, does anyone know how UD came up with this list of people? I do not agree with Kari Koch's logic It includes students she represents, former students she represents, seminary students, current and former faculty. But how did UD come up with the list?

Sunday, September 17, 2006 8:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the faculity advisors to SGA is an attorney in the firm that is representing the university it these lawsuits.

Sunday, September 17, 2006 9:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

another one is an instructor. Two partners of a law firm that is representing the University teach there.

Sunday, September 17, 2006 9:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Current UD Student said...

They were trying to get private communications between us (students) and professors. Do I have to fear that if I go to a prof with a problem or send them an email that it might end up on Bullocks desk? I am not a very happy person right now.

Sunday, September 17, 2006 9:45:00 AM  
Anonymous current ud student said...

Tony Keefe said...
I agree with SGA's stance

Hey Tony,
When you speak to your advisor of profs don't you want it kept in confidance? I do. SGA SHOULD BE standing up and saying that this is and was wrong. SGA needs to come out against this, or it may be your emails and phone records that they are after next.

Sunday, September 17, 2006 9:59:00 AM  
Anonymous former UD Student said...

As students in higher ed, we should know by now, that you cannot have an “educated” opinion of anything until researching all sides. Having the entire freshman class and transfer students arrive less than a month ago, it is unlikely they are even aware of the Jeffries’ case. Kudos to Kari Koch and SGA for not wanting to speak for them – that took more courage than an “uneducated” guess as to what the entire student body is feeling. It is also unlikely that the majority of UD students have been educated on all aspects of what has been a very confusing period in the university’s history called the Transformation. Perhaps before taking a stand on such complicated issues such as these, those interested should take the time to research and ask questions of all involved. I would also suggest that before any propaganda is distributed in an attempt to educate, those taking the responsibility to do so be sure to interview all those involved. Not just the supposed “victims” of the transformation, but those who were challenged to keep the doors of the University open despite low enrollment, lousy housing conditions, non-existent student life programs and laughable sports teams. Is it possible that the University is really experiencing some major “growing pains” and perhaps suffering from some incredibly lousy legal advice?

Sunday, September 17, 2006 1:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the SGA want's to wash it's hands of any stance in support of justice, I would think the SGA could (and should) address Garfield's plagarism other learners can learn what NOT to do from an ethical perspective.

Sunday, September 17, 2006 1:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While I want to agre with the previous comment, what would learners learn? That one can plagarize and keep one's job in the academy? It seems to me that we have forgotten the preamble to the Jeffries situation.

Sunday, September 17, 2006 1:36:00 PM  
Blogger Tony Keefe said...

I agree that SGA should involves its students. Involvement should be the means of adressing the current issues and getting the word out that UD does in fact have problems and that if students don't feel that it is "safe" to talk to their advisors, then they should address the student government to speak to the administration. I think that once students know about what is going on, they can formulate their own opinions on the matter. Now you know as well as I do that there is a biased stand point when it comes to this matter. Most people that I've seen comment on this site, myself included, side on Jeffrie's and Price's position. That's fine, but I think that in order to make an educated decision of who to support, you need to know everything, or a little bit of everything that is going on. I would be in favor of getting students on campus involved with the "inner workings" of the campus when it comes to hiring, firing, etc. professors on campus. I also think that it is necessary to let students know what is going on on their campus. We pay for the building, we pay for the professors, we should know what is going on. I still do not want SGA to make a blanket statement saying, "we support Jeff Bullock because we are a student organization at the University of Dubuque, and that is where our loyalty resides." That's not what I believe, however, if we inform students with what is going on, then SGA could say they are taking one stance and others can choose to take another. But, when you don't know what is going on, in this case the freshman class, you can't speak on behalf of them until they are informed. I agree with what the former UD student said in a couple of posts ago. I don't think we should make a rally against the school, but we should educate our students in order for them to make their own decisions. I also think that when UD sees students doing this, they will be more apt to having an open mindedness about them, wishful thinking on my part maybe. Maybe those that are upset with SGA's decision should take their concerns to SGA.

Sunday, September 17, 2006 4:08:00 PM  
Blogger Tony Keefe said...

One other thing that sparked my interest was a comment that was previously posted in this section. I feel comfortable going to my advisor and telling him what I need to tell him. It does seem weird that my advisor was on the subpoena list, but if I ask for something to remain in confidence, I'm confident that it will. If it doesn't, then we have a case just like Jason's where whatever Jason said to his professors is irrelevant. I would make the same fight as Jason. Jason, love ya buddy. Have fun in Boston!!

Sunday, September 17, 2006 4:13:00 PM  
Anonymous current ud student said...

I agree with Tony Keefe's previous posts. If student government takes a stand they need to be the unified voice of students. You can't be a unified voice for 470 blind followers. We need to go to Student Government like Keefe said and let them hear some of us out and start to educate students, faculty, and staff on campus. UD should be a sanctuary if you will. A place where ideas can be presented and people can speak without prosecution.

Sunday, September 17, 2006 4:41:00 PM  
Anonymous current ud student1970 said...

I am not saying that SGA should take sides on the issue. They should be concerned that their attorney wanted to get his hands on private communications.

Sunday, September 17, 2006 5:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Having been a student at UD, I find the discussion about what SGA should or should not do, very interesting. There are some facts related to student leaders at UD that we should remember.

First, the officers in student government work very closely with the Student Life Office. The effort is made to create a team relationship between SGA and Student Life employees, and this usually works well in meeting student needs. However, it sometimes complicates a situation in which students are attempting to evaluate or judge actions taken by the UD administration. Student Life employees are under the same pressure as other employees to support the official University line.

The next important point to remember is that top UD administators do not forget for one moment that they keep their high-paid jobs only as long as they remain in sympathy with the views of the business executives who provide much of UD's funding and serve on UD's Board. President Bullock and his main advisors know how the corporate world works, and they invest great energy to stay in favor. Keeping the faculty "in their place" is a main expectation, and harsh policies such as the gag rule are the result.

Cronyism is the rule, and this involves staying close to the people on top. The president of SGA is cultivated as a person who can be of value to the administration. Bullock's success in fund-raising shows that he is effective at this sort of thing.

In 1999, when the "Plan for Transformation" was presented, with no advance consultation or notice, to the University community, emphasis was placed on the "PROPOSAL" status of the plan. The Board requested input. The SGA president at the time, Troy Smith, resisted overtures by the administration and worked with faculty members to study issues and provide input.

The fate of faculty who spoke up at the time is well-known, they are gone. It is no surprise that greater priority was placed after that time on giving special attention to student leaders.

In short, student leaders find themselves in a no-win situation when controversies arise. There are direct and indirect pressures to faithfully support the administrative line. They must be careful to appear to represent students at the same time.

Surely, all these interactions are taking place in the background of the Jeffries and subpoena cases.

Sunday, September 17, 2006 6:07:00 PM  
Blogger Tony Keefe said...

thank you for clarifying...are you referring to one of the advisor's being part of the law firm that represents the University of Dubuque? that advisor works for the same firm, but totally different offices, in totally different jurisdictions. he is based out of Galena, not Dubuque. I'm not saying there isn't a conflict of interest, but I don't think he should get his good named smeared into this. Just a thought. What do you think?

Sunday, September 17, 2006 7:50:00 PM  
Anonymous current ud student1970 said...

The same prof who was hired after Dr. Jefferies. Kind of seeing the big picture now?

Sunday, September 17, 2006 8:52:00 PM  
Blogger WhatWendtWrong said...

Just to clarify: as we understand it, Paul Jensen was hired as a part-time faculty member in the philosophy and religion department when Prof. Jeffries still believed he had tenure. Of course, we may be misinformed.

-The Editors.

Sunday, September 17, 2006 11:42:00 PM  
Anonymous One of the Departed Faculty said...

It is time to adjust our focus, to attempt a big-picture view.

The University's Board is now controlled by wealthy individuals from the business world who bring priorities and expectations from that arena. They expect their authority to govern all major activities at the University, and they have in place top administrators who operate the University with that in mind.

As a result, image is the top institutional priority. Operational details must remain secret, and the University will go to any length to protect that secrecy. Legal fees are accepted as a "part of doing business".

New buildings are constructed to provide the desired image of success, and relevance to the educational process is given little consideration. Donors make the decisions.

We then ask, what is the quality of education that is being provided at today's University of Dubuque, at the undergraduate level?

Does it make a difference that a high percentage of lower-level courses in the core curriculum are taught by part-time instructors? For that matter, does it make a difference that the lack of real admissions standards means that freshman classes are filled with poorly prepared students who have little chance of successfully graduating?

Does it matter that tenure status is not respected when faculty are summarily forced out?

Does it matter that teaching awards, promotions, and even tenure itself are awarded from the top on the basis of rewarding unquestioning loyalty and services rendered to the administration?

The climate at the University of Dubuque encourages self-interest. When faculty must base their efforts on the need to pursue self-interest, will student needs be a priority?

The high level of faculty turnover that is obvious is partly due to individuals leaving to teach at institutions where professionalism is respected and free discourse is allowed. It is partly due to the administration acting to force out faculty who are perceived as disobedient/disloyal, no matter how many years of service to students have been provided, no matter what important academic programs have been started and nutured into success.

Will an institution with a rich legacy of service survive such damaging direction and leadership?
It remains to be seen.

Monday, September 18, 2006 9:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or does it matter that Garfield claimed to have returned the award for plagarism (oops, I mean award for excellence in teaching) but that his name still appears on the awards plaque in the lobby of Blades Hall?

No wonder the new show place is the new building. Folks won't see Garfield's name on the plaque if they don't go to Blades Hall.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 6:58:00 PM  
Anonymous current ud student1970 said...

I should point out that my frustration is with the administration, not with the professors. I hate the fact that the administration tries to bully my professors. By doing what they do the administration is creating disharmony and mistrust. SHAME ON THEM.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 9:14:00 PM  
Anonymous current ud student1970 said...

I would really like to UD settle this thing. It is not right to drag the name of a university through the mud. At what cost will they go to prove their case. I only hope that I never get on the bad side of Jeffery BULLock.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 9:20:00 PM  
Anonymous current ud student said...

Another fine UD Professor is leaving. Thank you Jeff

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 9:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who is leaving?

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 8:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rumor has it that one of the professors listed on UD's subpoena is leaving after the fall semester.

And UD claims that its policies/actions have no harmful effect!!

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Who is leaving?

The chairman of the business dept.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 9:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I cannot help but distrust the motives of Jeff Bullock as he announces a memorial service for the student who sadly was killed.

All of the criticism the University has recently received makes this a convenient time for Jeff to make a show of being student-centered.

Is this more management of the media?

Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another faculty member leaves UD. This time, it's the brand new professor in the psych program. He didn't even last a semester. What's the real reason he left.

All the students were told is that he resigned. Why? Didn't he have to sign a contract that would keep him for at least a semester?

Oh, well, I'm only a student. I'm not supposed to know anything or question what's going on. Forgive me.

Friday, October 06, 2006 11:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Former Student said...

Isn't it high time that the students organized to protest the secrecy that prevails on campus? After all, you are the "paying customers" that the administration keeps preaching to the faculty about.

Friday, October 06, 2006 11:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A faculty contract is for a year if it is for a full-time position. But to leave during the semester may indicate that the psych faculty member found conditions so intolerable that in good conscience he had to leave.But that is speculation. He may have offended one of the administrators and was escorted off campus. Ask Dr. Mark Stevens; as department chairperson, he should know. But as administrative loyalist and one of the infamous seven who was retained when the rest of the faculty was dismissed, don't expect an answer.

Saturday, October 07, 2006 11:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Stevens was so afraid of the administration that he begged to have his name removed from the minutes (he had seconded a harmless motion) when participating in committee consideration of the Transformation "proposal".

That's what it takes to survive at UD. He was even rewarded with an award by Bullock this year.

Saturday, October 07, 2006 11:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't forget the coward, Roger Ebertz, who did not defend Jeffries for real fear of his job. He poses as a deep thinker who is considering all sides of a question--and has head and had motions to match along with change of voice. But he never comes to a decision publicly when he should forthrightly stand for truth and justice. he will last a long time, too.

Sunday, October 08, 2006 11:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A glance at the UD schedule of classes for this semester shows the desperation of the administration in assigning faculty outside of their chosen field in which they have master's or doctoral degrees.

For example, Alan Garfield, the computer graphic Ph.D. teaches courses in Art, Business, Communications, English, History, and one in--computer graphics! Six departments. Does he have degrees in those areas?

Ebertz teaches course in Art, Cross Cultural Studies, Philosophy, and Religion--these last two are related but he formerly taught all of the Religious Studies courses.

Accinelli, the aviation expert, teaches only one course in aviation, but in International Studies and Spanish.

What can one say about the quality of the teaching in these courses? A master's degree usually requires 30 graduate credits and almost three years (a limit of 12 graduate credits is the norm). A Ph.D. requires over 100 credits beyond the bachelor's degree. I doubt these people (and many of the part-time people) have these credentials.

Let it be said that it is unusual for anyone to have more than one masters and more than one Ph.D. is unheard of. The curious should check the catalog in the back to determine who is qualified to teach in those departments and who is not.

Sad, this debasing of the quality of what is alleged as university-level courses.

Sunday, October 08, 2006 11:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One correction: Alan Garfield, the plagiarist, does NOT hold a PhD. He is, however, an expert at self-promotion.

Monday, October 09, 2006 12:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Garfield is the plagiarist, why is Jeffries no longer on UDs payroll? Was the wrong person terminated?

Oh, excuse me. I think I used the wrong terminology. UD has indicated that Dr. Jeffries turned down his most recent contract offer. The fact that the second contract differed from the first is supposed to be ignored. At least that's how I understand UD's story.

Furthermore, according to Garfield, he apologized for his screw-up and returned the "award." Yet, according to other accounts in this blog, Garfield's name remains on the "award" plaque that is mounted on a wall somewhere on campus. Does anyone know if the plaques remains?

The only question that seems amorphous is "what is the real story as to why Dr. Jeffries, a respected professor, is no longer employed.

Monday, October 09, 2006 5:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He is no longer employed because he dared to question some of the things being done on campus, on the basis of ethics, to Bullock's face -- whereupon Bullock lost his temper and threw him out of his office.

Monday, October 09, 2006 11:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it was explained in one of the blog entries on this site that Jeffries as the new Wendt professor was asked to take Garfield to task for his plagiarism but Jeffries refused explaining that his job would be to point out the unethicalness of plagiarism but that it was the responsibility of the administration to censure Garfield. For this act of insubordiation, his tenure was withdrawn without the administration going through any of the procedures in the Handbook for the temination of a tenured professor. Is the Bullock temper at work here?

Tuesday, October 10, 2006 12:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why will UD's Board not listen to alumni?

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 11:18:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rumor has it that another faculty member who's named in the famed supena is leaving at the end of the fall semester. Anyone know who?

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you counting the business prof mentioned above? That name was on the subpoena list.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

UD Board not listen to alumni? Easy. In the last capital campaign to raise money, the administration was shocked to find that the alumni did not even donate the amount that the outside fund raisers predicted they would; the money came from the big corporations and spenders. Why bother with alumni if they donate so little? Of course, this should have been a messsage to the administration that they treated these alumni poorly when they were students here, but then, administration does not wrong! Right?

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 12:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Alienated Alumnus said...

Actually, alumni have been important in events leading up to the present messed-up campus. Faculty concern about the drastic nature of 1999's Transformation proposal, for which they had no input or advance notice (remember, UD's Board turned to the Transformation option only after they lost a lawsuit against faculty that attempted to lessen the faculty role), led the UD AAUP chapter to send a letter, signed by 5 faculty members (one an alumnus), to all UD alumni. The letter challenged the Transformation plan on the grounds of both faulty reasoning behind the plan and a predicted devastating effect on the University's ability to continue serving its mission.

Many alumni contacted UD Board members (whose names and addresses were available at the time) to protest the Transformation plan and appeal to the Board to turn the plan down. This out-pouring of opposition was resented by Board leaders who had been confident that the Transformation could be pulled off fairly quietly and with a minimum of inconvenience. Note that some of the programs dear to alumni that were dropped as part of the Transformation, including music and secondary education, have been quietly reinstated in recent years.

In the aftermath of implementing the Transformation, UD administrators were surprised to find a significant decline in alumni financial support. Some alumni even removed the University from their wills.

This background information helps to explain why University lawyers, in dictating a new faculty handbook to the reconstituted faculty (after the Transformation purge of faculty), insisted that the gag order forbidding faculty contact with alumni be included.

So faculty contact with alumni led, in an important way, to the gag order. And questioning of the gag order by Jeffries was a big factor in his termination. Now the blog is informing many alumni of the situation. We have some very interesting relationships here.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, the UD AAUP chapter sent a letter, signed by 5 faculty members (one an alumnus), to all UD alumni challenging the Transformation plan. In retaliation for signing that letter, the alumnus was persecuted from that time until he was ultimately dismissed two years ago. No special status in being an alumnus! He was constantly reminded of that signature whenever he met with administration as if the act of signing was somehow wrong. While at UD as a faculty member, this alumnus went out of his way to recruit students by making phone contacts with prospective students and giving campus tours. He also on committees at the administration's behest. The price of loyalty with this and previous administrations is, of course, zero.

Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr.Alan Lisk is leaving at the end of the semester

Thursday, October 19, 2006 11:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i overheard a couple of faculty talking about dr. daack in sociology is leaving after the fall semester. how many others are exiting?

Friday, October 20, 2006 7:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So another faculty member from the subpoena list bites the dust! Chilling!!

Saturday, October 21, 2006 6:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Departed Faculty said...

Is it true that Rachel Daack is leaving UD's faculty? It makes me wonder if the other surviving UD faculty members who were placed on the subpoena list are safe: Barz, Jamieson, Oleson, Zuercher.

Monday, October 23, 2006 10:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about the UD Seminary faculty members who were named on the subpoena list? Are they immune from persecution?

Monday, October 23, 2006 10:48:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some of the UD faculty members who are leaving are actually moving to institutions where sincere, as opposed to claimed, integrity is valued.

We should celebrate that.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 2:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When refering to integrity do you mean faculty are leaving to go to other institutions where students are recruited based upon their academic potential vs. athletic prowess? UD is filled w/football players from florida who don't buy books and have trouble reading and writing. How does recruiting folks from far away and only stay a year or two to play ball mesh with recruting students who can handle college academics? UD is no better than big schools who play freshmen who cannot cut it in the classroom.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Talk about integrity and football, how about their coach, who was at Mt. Senario, and the UD administration. The writer of the following letter to the Des Moines Register (but never printed) gave me permission to reprint it here.

November 12, 2001

Des Moines Register
P.O. Box 957
Des Moines, IA 50304

The biggest athletic boondoggle of this new century went unnoticed by everyone. Partially due to lack of victories. Which was just fine with the University of Dubuque athletic department and administration. Twenty Mt. Senario College football players transferred to the University of Dubuque in time for the 2001 fall semester. They followed their coach who became the new football coach at the university. Twenty. Has anyone heard of that many players transferring all at once? And no one wants to talk about it. Has Mt. Senario College been wronged? Its athletic director has been forbidden to talk about it. The NCAA Division III office admits that twenty is an unusual number but it won’t investigate unless there is evidence of wrongdoing. I guess a smoking gun isn’t enough to set off an investigation. And not a word from the Dubuque Telegraph Herald or Des Moines Register sportswriters. No sensitivity to ethics and poor sportsmanship here. You would have thought that the new U.D. coach would have told his players that while he was flattered, their finishing their college education in the least amount of time with the least disruption was more important than athletics and that it was wrong to injure their college’s football program. But you would have thought wrong. You would have thought that the University of Dubuque administration and board of trustees who trumpet Christian values and Christian treatment of others would have refused the offer to devastate another college’s football program much less reduce its academic enrollment. But you would have thought wrong for greed will out. What a sad commentary all around. What Would Jesus Do? It isn’t hard to guess.

Thursday, October 26, 2006 12:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Alienated Alumnus said...

Has anyone thought about the fact that the term "transformation" was an accurate way to describe the complete change that took place at UD, only not in the way intended by the UD Board? The change was actually from an institution with serious academic standards to one paying only lip service to academics; from a place where employees of integrity could work without compromising their principles; from a school where students and alumni were valued as the soul of the institution to one where they are treated as a necessary evil. All of this adds up to a drastic change in philosophy under which donors are worshipped and image reigns. Public corporations can be held accountable through the actions of whistle-blowers -- at UD, any employee who is identified as even whispering the truth in these matters is summarily terminated.

Thursday, October 26, 2006 2:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Public universities are held accountable by a board of trustees who are either elected or appointed by the governor. Private universities are held accountable by a board of trustees who are elected by the present board members (sort of a good 'ole boy network) who are accountable to no one.

Friday, October 27, 2006 12:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does the delay announced for the trial in the Jeffries case affect the unemployment benefit dispute?

Monday, December 04, 2006 3:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Alienated Alum said...

It would be very interesting to read comments from Prof. Miller and other former UD faculty who have either been terminated or have moved on to institutions where both their efforts and opinions are appreciated.

Friday, January 05, 2007 12:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now even Bev Anderson has given up on the incompetents and tyrants at UD!!

Friday, January 05, 2007 12:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did Bev resign?! Was she fired?! Does anyone know? She certainly was NOT ready to retire. Is Bullock involved in her leaving too?

Friday, January 12, 2007 10:44:00 PM  
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 1:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What did Bev Anderson ever do for UD?

Monday, January 15, 2007 9:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

She is a science graduate of UD from the 70s, went on to a career in banking, returned to UD a few years ago to ramp up alumni activities (which were at a low), and most recently served as an assoc. VP in Development with a major assignment to work on funding for the new science complex.

Monday, January 15, 2007 12:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bev Anderson is taking or took on an impossible task. When you are mistreated as a student, the likelyhood of contributing as an alum is virtually non-existent. When the present student body members discover that they were denied a quality education because most of their profs are not full-time thus not commiting time to students as advisors nor to preparing for classes, most do not have Ph.D.'s, many come for a short time and then leave because they are treated as non-entities--and then are charged a four-year college equivalent tuition--they will not contribute either. Lots of buildings--no attention to academics.

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

The last comment is right on the money. To put it in a slightly different context, I am convinced that the leaders on UD's Board view faculty the way bank directors view tellers: highly expendable and interchangable; people you need to present a smiling face to the customers(students), but not deserving of much pay or training, certainly not given a voice in decision-making. Why else would such a high percentage of core courses be taught by semi-retired part-timers?

UD has become an attractive home for individuals who took early retirement from the public schools. They have at best an Education Master's degree and little evidence of advanced work. They require only some supplemental income and the chance to boast to family and friends that they are "teaching on the college level".

What a deal for UD!!!

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 11:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some of my best teachers at UD are retired from the public school system.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 6:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They may be "best" and personable but still do not have Ph.D.s and thus are not as expert as they should be. And being part-time, they don't devote their time to keeping up in their field and do little if any advising for that is the responsibility of the full-time faculty and they are paid for piece-meal work at the lowest level of the pay scale. Want excellent teachers? Call back the fired faculty (mostly all of them) from the 1999 bloodbath (impossible, now).

Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This may shock the hell out of people but someone with an "Education Master's degree" can teach some of the Ph D's who are full of themselves (and an incredible amount of hot air)a WHOLE lot about TEACHING. I have had Ph D's who were more interested in their cronies and being "academic" than teaching. I think the blogger is a snob. Best and personable means a great deal when it's time to teach. Level of education does not mean a person has one ounce of "people" skills. Some of my best teachers at UD are PhD's and some have "only" master's degrees. AND some of my WORST professors have PhD's and are the WORST people that have ever attempted to share information in a logical, sensible fashion. Former teachers have been in the trenches and can manage some of the students UD insists on admitting. How about you get off your high horse and buy one of the lowly Master's degree staff people a cup of coffee? God knows you have more money.

Sunday, January 28, 2007 8:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, there is a difference between knowing a subject and teaching it. Ph.D.s only guarantees that the holder did research. Anyone with a degree in Education would be a better teacher than someone without a degree in Education but has a Ph.D. in some other area--almost all of the time. The point that was made is that you have to be in possession of the subject matter before you can teach it. And a Ph.D, in, say Physics, would have more subject matter expetise in Physics than someone with a Masters in Physics. And the person with a Masters in Physics could well be the better teacher of Physics but would be limited in what he or she could teach. That is why almost all universities require a Ph.D. in the subject area or working toward one. Not UD, any more. Large universities have Education Ph.D.s available to help the faculty be better teachers, upon request.
The last (and very possibly the only) workshop on teaching held many years ago dealt with test construction and invited experts in the various types of test items to make presentations.

Monday, January 29, 2007 1:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The snob comment hit home. There was no intent to demean anyone. Certainly, the retired teachers are good people and can relate to students well -- they are probably in better shape to deal with under-prepared and poorly motivated students. The problem is that the University is taking advantage of them. Also, they can not be expected to teach specialized advanced courses or direct top students toward graduate study. If you examine the criteria used by the University to evaluate faculty for renewal and promotion (tenure is now meaningless at UD), there is a clear call for scholarly work(research). You can be sure that UD emphasizes this aspect when advertising its "quality" faculty. It would seem that relying on a different group of individuals to do much of the day-to-day teaching is false advertising, at a minimum.

Please look at what other colleges provide to students. It is a sure thing that UD does not discount tuition based on the minimal pay provided to the many part-time instructors carrying the teaching load.

Monday, January 29, 2007 11:37:00 AM  
Anonymous unhappy alumnus said...

How many faculty will choose to register their opinion about conditions on campus with their feet this spring?

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:08:00 PM  
Anonymous unhappy alumnus said...

How many faculty will choose to register their opinion about conditions on campus with their feet this spring?

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

re: How many faculty will choose to register their opinion about conditions on campus with their feet this spring?

Not enough, but keep asking.

Thursday, June 21, 2007 1:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks a lot for a bunch of good tips. I look forward to reading more on the topic in the future. Keep up the good work! This blog is going to be great resource. Love reading it.
writing a term paper-Term Paper Sample

Saturday, January 16, 2010 4:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks a lot for a bunch of good tips. I look forward to reading more on the topic in the future. Keep up the good work! This blog is going to be great resource. Love reading it.
writing a term paper-Term Paper Sample

Saturday, January 16, 2010 4:35:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

free web page counters