- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
I've always thought revealing the accused limited thier right to a fair trial since right from the begining the public and jurors atuomatically assume guilt no matter if the party is guilty. IMO The accused of a crime/violation should be secret until actual conviction is obtained.. And here is an excellent reason for it... showing extorsion..
As some of you know my wife is a nurse and teaches nursing at a university. Well evidently there was a really poor instructor they wanted to get rid of. She had poor student evaluations, poor teaching evaluations and no research/conferences/university service at all. These are the three criteria is judged by when someone is slated to be accepted for tenure (which means almost a permanent professorship eventually moving to full professor). If you don't get tenure you are usually fired. Well this lady did'nt, and was not going to have her contract renewed next year (fired) so she filed a , baseless by all accounts, discrimmination suit. And the university did'nt want the heat caused by dragging this though the press and publicness of the trial so they caved and awarded tenure. Damn shame if you ask me. Mearly the employer being accused and the incompitent instructor got her way.
IMO this goes to show the power of accusal and how keeping a public lid on it would have given the university an opportunity to actually defend itself instead of caving.
As some of you know my wife is a nurse and teaches nursing at a university. Well evidently there was a really poor instructor they wanted to get rid of. She had poor student evaluations, poor teaching evaluations and no research/conferences/university service at all. These are the three criteria is judged by when someone is slated to be accepted for tenure (which means almost a permanent professorship eventually moving to full professor). If you don't get tenure you are usually fired. Well this lady did'nt, and was not going to have her contract renewed next year (fired) so she filed a , baseless by all accounts, discrimmination suit. And the university did'nt want the heat caused by dragging this though the press and publicness of the trial so they caved and awarded tenure. Damn shame if you ask me. Mearly the employer being accused and the incompitent instructor got her way.
IMO this goes to show the power of accusal and how keeping a public lid on it would have given the university an opportunity to actually defend itself instead of caving.
I agree, however it still happens in private corps. Dominos pizza a few years back had to allow some of it's underserving franchisees keep it amid the controvery after a suit was filed. Discrimmination is wrong but if you can't even defend a baseless charge for fear of PR reprocusions thats wrong too. And gives a blank check to incompitance and baseless accusations. My wife is pissed... She's constantly on unpaid faculty senate, goes to conferences, gets great evals... she's like why should I? When my turn comes up I'll file too... (she's joking of course but just making the point)
Facebook
Twitter