Telegraph Herald Article, II
On Wednesday, November 30, the Dubuque Telegraph Herald ran another article pertaining to the Jeffries lawsuit. According to the article, "the codefendants [the University and Dr. Bullock] acknowledge that Jeffries had a tenure-track contract but deny that the university granted him tenure."
A reader of this blog recently reported (see comments section) that "President Bullock acknowledged [Jeffries] tenure to various people on campus including the faculty." Whether this is true or not is a matter of factual significance (from our point of view). We have heard that Professor Jeffries was asked by John Stewart to present a case of academic misconduct against a fellow faculty member because he was the tenured ethics professor. Should it end up being the case that Drs. Stewart and Bullock did indeed make statements to the effect of (or explicitly stating that) Jeffries was tenured, there would seem to be a serious discrepency in the University's position.
We would be interested in hearing from faculty members on this issue. Did Dr. Bullock make statements to the effect that Jeffries had been granted tenure? While such a discrepency may not matter in court, it certainly raises concern among those of us interested in seeing the University fulfill its mission.
NOTE: We have attempted to pick up a copy of the University's answer to the Jeffries petition at the Dubuque County Courthouse. Unfortunately, we were told that the file has been checked out by the judge involved in the case. We will post the document on our download site as soon as possible.
A reader of this blog recently reported (see comments section) that "President Bullock acknowledged [Jeffries] tenure to various people on campus including the faculty." Whether this is true or not is a matter of factual significance (from our point of view). We have heard that Professor Jeffries was asked by John Stewart to present a case of academic misconduct against a fellow faculty member because he was the tenured ethics professor. Should it end up being the case that Drs. Stewart and Bullock did indeed make statements to the effect of (or explicitly stating that) Jeffries was tenured, there would seem to be a serious discrepency in the University's position.
We would be interested in hearing from faculty members on this issue. Did Dr. Bullock make statements to the effect that Jeffries had been granted tenure? While such a discrepency may not matter in court, it certainly raises concern among those of us interested in seeing the University fulfill its mission.
NOTE: We have attempted to pick up a copy of the University's answer to the Jeffries petition at the Dubuque County Courthouse. Unfortunately, we were told that the file has been checked out by the judge involved in the case. We will post the document on our download site as soon as possible.
posted by WhatWendtWrong at 1:13 PM
13 Comments:
Here we go again...he said, she said. Can't we just stick to the actual facts instead of spreading rumors. Maybe you should have Kari Koch write this blog, at least she sticks with the facts and not a bunch on hearsay. I think many students, including myself, understand the situation much better since she told both sides of the story in her Belltower articles. Do this blog a favor and learn from her success and stop all of the worthless rhetoric.
Calvin Says:
Aren't they asking for the facts? Isn't that the whole point of the question? They seem to be trying to clear up the he said, she said.
I say:
Don't the comments from Rev. Alan Crandell elswhere on this board imply that he was told that Dr. Jeffries was given tenure?
Ex-seminary:
To the first comment in this link, it is reported that the student that wrote the series in the belltower (I assume Kari Koch?) was given contradictory answers from John Stewart as to wheather Paul was or was not the Wendt Faculty. In her first interview, John said Paul had not been given the job, but after the reporter asked around, she was told that this was announced by John Stewart in a room full of people that Paul was the Wendt Faculty. Suddenly, he remembered that Paul did have that job. At least, that is the story on campus. Perhaps the reporter will confirm.
Sorry, but one does not "forget" that they gave someone a new job.
Events are sometime ugly. And no, this is not a personal attack on anyone. It is just a summary of the allogations which may or may not be confirmed.
When will TH article III come out with comments on this Blog. I wonder if the Des mones Register or a college life publications will beat the TH.
In response to the above comment:
Why not write a letter to the editor of the TH? I have been surprised that no one has done that yet, or at least that none have been printed. Does our silence convey apathy on this matter? Wouldn't it be good for the TH to know that their readers do care about this topic? Is the anonymity issue holding us back, or is it something else?
For any faculty or staff member to send a letter to the editor would result in their immediate termination. It is in thier contracts. That was one of the things the ethics guy (Jeffries) was trying to get removed. He kept arguing you can;t be an ethics representative and be contracturally obligated to not speak bad of the university.
Okay, so what about other people? Are faculty and staff the only people concerned about this? I'd say not. Has anyone on here contacted the TH about this blog?
The publisher of the TH is on UD's Board or is very closely linked to UD, Nothing will be printed and, if anything is, it will me minimized. Accept that and move on
Down below, someone states that UD is highering the lawyer from the Jeffries case to teach? Does anyone know if this is true?
This is true. Two of the lawyers from the firm that represents UD in the lawsuits are on fulltime faculty. The latest is the new hire in the Criminal Law program.
Does anyone know if this is the same lawyer that wrote the stupid letter to this blog?
Calvin
Two lawyers on UD's fulltime faculty?? Salaries certainly must be much higher than they were in the past!!
Maybe UD is just hiring really bad lawyers so the low salaries are actually an increase.
The more important question is should UD be hiring its lawyers to supervise future potential witnesses?
Post a Comment
<< Home