Comments on: If only you knew the whole story …

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 21:15:34 +0000

The discussion has helped me to clarify my thoughts a bit. Once you invoke the due process defence, you can’t resort to the kind of insinuation that characterizes this letter. A defensible reponse would have been the first para with the “much, much, more” sentence omitted.

By: Timothy Burke

Timothy Burke — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 20:46:01 +0000

Some universities allow individuals involved in personnel disputes of this sort to examine all files involved, with redaction of names and limited rights to take notes or record information from those files, on a read-only basis. Even on that basis, this often allows someone to turn up considerable evidence of procedural injustices and be confident of speaking more fully to the record involved. I’m on record as saying this case is “bad”, by which I largely mean that any time you dismiss a tenured member of your faculty in the middle of the semester, that is a bad thing definitionally, even if it’s with cause. That’s so disruptive that it had better be for extreme cause. If there’s an extreme cause here, there’s no way for outsiders to see it. Moreover, academics know only too well that in many cases when insiders say, “Trust us, there’s a good reason for this” that they are not to be trusted, as John and others observe.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 20:06:29 +0000

“The more creditable is that the information on which the decision relied must be kept confidential for reasons of due process but that, if it were public, the decision would be seen to be reasonable.” Yes a very predictable response. But the disturbing thing is that most non-national-security confidentiality concerns are for the protection of the accused. To invoke them to protect the institution is a complete inversion of the justification for secrecy.

By: Paula

Paula — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 18:56:53 +0000

I’m a returning-adult sophomore at Penn State’s main campus. When I originally matriculated at Penn State, I intended to major in Integrative Arts, which requires a student to self-design a curriculum integrating coursework from two or more majors culminating in a senior-year capstone project. The major is offered by the College of Arts and Architecture and has only been around for a couple of years. During the process of information gathering it became clear to me that there was some sort of interdepartmental politics going on regarding the Integrative Arts major. I have no idea what the nature of this dispute might be or how it may differ between the Altoona campus and the main campus. What I do know is that advisors from some departments were very cordial toward me in my efforts while others were cold, even bordering on hostile, particularly from the Fine Arts department. In the end I decided that four years’ worth of dealing with this sort of thing was not an option. I declared the journalism major instead. It does not surprise me at all that Gerard’s situation revolves around the Integrative Arts major. It seems to be a polarizing issue among Penn State faculty and I have no doubt that her dismissal is politically motivated. Departmental infighting, constitutionally questionable policies, incredibly irresponsible financial decision-making, disregard for students’ concerns, and deteriorating campus climate (including students’ physical safety) are hallmarks of Graham Spanier’s presidency. I don’t know what the outcome of Gerard’s lawsuit could potentially be, but I hope it serves as a lightning rod to bring national media attention to the situation at Penn State generally.

By: pw

pw — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 18:15:30 +0000

Having watched from the edges a disciplinary proceeding at another university (in which a quite possibly guilty party with extensive representation was ostensibly cleared of wrongdoing) I’m perfectly willing to take at face value a university’s claim that litigation concerns preclude releasing a full account of what happened. It’s amazing, sometimes, what “due process” does to due process.

By: T. Gracchus

T. Gracchus — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:47:54 +0000

Employment laws generally bar public disclosures of the kind requested here. The university response is a generic response, without much meaning one way or the other. It is not at all clear that the employee has the right to authorize release or, that, even with such authorization it would be prudent for the university to comply. The employee could release all documents in her possession which were not deemed confidential by any other party, but the limits of that move are also marked. Commentary and complaints for example, are not hers to release. In short, due process and privacy requirements entail that it is very hard to form a reliable opinion on such matters until after at least the first round of formal proceedings are complete, and likely not until after civil trial.

By: Kevin Drum

Kevin Drum — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 15:16:23 +0000

What does Gerard say? In a case like this, doubt could be laid to rest by Gerard publicly giving Penn State permission to open the case files completely and signing a statement holding them harmless for revealing the information. (It doesn’t have to preclude her rights to sue for any substantive violation, only for having released this particluar piece of otherwise confidential information.) If she does this, and they still refuse, I would say your suspicions are well founded. On the other hand, if Gerard refuses to do this, I would then wonder about her motivations.

By: Rok

Rok — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 14:40:49 +0000

If you can’t talk openly about how a decision was reached, then it wasn’t reached honestly. If you fear for a lawsuit, then you have no confidence in your decision.