Comments on: A Georgia professor’s fight for due process

By: Insider

Insider — Fri, 28 May 2010 11:46:07 +0000

The professor was fired for dissenting with the administration. He could not be canned legally, so the USG school used its old and reliable method: (1) cook up a phony allegation of misconduct, (2) go through the motions of addressing it until a new academic year begins, and then (3) issue a nonrenewal, a firing without cause for which the school does not have to provide proof. By the time Thibeault has his case filed in court, years will have passed, and the school’s insurer will cover its liability. In the end, the school suffers a little negative publicity but loses not money, which is all the school cared about in the first place. If courts started socking punitive damages to these crooks, this crap would be curbed.

By: Ethan Castaneda

Ethan Castaneda — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:32:48 +0000

this is just retarded. This is no reason to fire or suspend payfrom a very respectable professor. First off: proof?! secondly: what r the grounds? and thirdly:idiots! youd be losing a teacher. ???????

-go dawgs -

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:49:48 +0000

Dear Algonquin J. Calhoun: let’s not be quite so prudish. If you have a good relationship with your students, there is nothing with clarifying to one of them that she is dressed too provocatively. I find his presentation of the conversation and circumstances entirely believable.

Much more likely, at this point, is that Prof. Thibeault raised uncomfortable questions and had perhaps offended members of the school administration. That is no grounds to fire a professor! In fact, raising uncomfortable questions is very much part of the job description.

Cheers,

Brad (who is also a prof.)

By: Georgia taxpayers

Georgia taxpayers — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:39:00 +0000

It would not surprise many USG faculty and staff if the professor’s rights have been (alledgedly) violated – as it is common practice at the University System of Georgia. But the USG is currently getting away with much more.
Jim Walls with Atlanta Unfiltered has confirmed the amounts below that USG presidents have accumulated or collected in deferred pay since 2004, according to records provided by the University System, tax returns and financial statements. The figures reflect payments or set-asides of state money and, where known, of funds from a school’s associated foundation.
$1,820,697 — Wayne Clough, former Georgia Tech president (includes $500,000 cash, a $38,000 car and a split-dollar life insurance policy valued at $750,000 from the foundation)
$1,666,639 — Carl Patton, retired Georgia State University president
$1,573,606 — Michael Adams, UGA president (includes $786,106 due from the UGA Foundation as of June 2008)
$600,000 — David Bell, Macon State University president (includes $400,000 due from the Macon State foundation)
$495,990 — Thomas Meredith, former University System chancellor (includes $180,990 from the University System of Georgia Foundation)
$480,000 — Daniel Rahn, Medical College of Georgia president
$262,500 — Erroll B. Davis Jr., University System chancellor
$127,000 — Beheruz Sethna, University of West Georgia president
$90,000 — Dan Papp, Kennesaw State University foundation
$75,000 — Bud Peterson, Georgia Tech president since April 1
$7,191,432 – Total

By: Globals

Globals — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 04:50:34 +0000

all good things

By: Rick Sansoni

Rick Sansoni — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:57:45 +0000

A correction to my last post. Sexual Harassment Law does not violate Civil Rights Law…..I commented too soon.

If it turns out this professor gets fired for opposing this sexual harassment policy, assuming he feels it violates discrimination law, he may have a harassment case against them.

See EEOC, harassment. just a thought.

By: Rick Sansoni

Rick Sansoni — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:45:32 +0000

He won’t have a fair hearing. The policy clearly states “the feelings of the offended were proof of the offensive nature of the behavior”, that’s why he won’t be included. So anytime someone’s feelings get hurt, a career gets ruined.

Now Sexual Discrimination Law clearly states that “ANY employment action based solely on sex, race, religion, age etc. is against the law.

Yet this kind of insanity exists in every workplace in the US that employs 15 or more employees. Most sexual harassment policies and the law it self violates Civil Rights Law that is supposed to apply in the workplace.

Imagine if this was applied outside the workplace. Person gets a DUI, gets arrested, turns around and sues for sexual harassment. Her feelings were hurt because she was pulled over.

This is absolute insanity.

By: GSUProfessor

GSUProfessor — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:56:28 +0000

A generally good debate, better, frankly, than the opinion piece.
The core concern, no matter what one’s political perspective, is that the accused has still not been informed of the content or nature of the accusation. Either the professor has violated the Harassment policy he agreed to follow by signing his contract, or he has not, and only a fair hearing can determine this. So far, there has been no movement toward a hearing.
Tenure does not protect a Professor from dismissal. As we joke here, tenure only means they have to be a little more creative to fire you. I wonder if we are seeing some of that creativity here?

By: Rick Sansoni

Rick Sansoni — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:32:25 +0000

This is not by any means the most extreme cases where there is no due process. There is NEVER any due process involved in sexual harassment cases. Sexual Harassment Law is the biggest fraud put upon the American people in it’s history. Thousands of lives have been ruined, and many business as well. For no reason. Most HR people are aware of that, and most are reluctant to speak about it.
Here’s another real life example: http://www.myspace.com/gwinnettsoon

By: Your morning jolt: High court upholds touch-screen voting and the rights of young strippers | Political Insider

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:31:13 +0000

[...] Kyle Wingfield tells about a Georgia professor’s fight for due process. [...]