quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Product
"

=======================================
No, I did not realize that she was still employed here but since she was still employed then this does reduce my sympathy for her personal plight.
========================================

You obviously did not read the previous answer about Dr. Farrell. She is chair of nursing at U. of CA, Bakersfield. She shook the dust of HB off her feet as fast as she could. If you think we're better off keeping Shelby Thames and losing Marie Ferrell, Anne Wallace, the Kimbers, the Stringers, Chuck Bolton, Frank Glamser, Wheeler & Villeponteaux, Berry, Ray Folse, Glenn Harper, and a couple of hundred other brilliant and dedicated teachers and researchers, not to mention the unnamed staffers, you really are completely clueless. Your mindless devotion to this man is costing you the very school you profess to love.

Fellow posters, I think we should stop responding to this person. They are hopeless.

"

---

USM Product,

In both of the above matters [Glamser and Stringer's alleged criminality; Angie Dvorak's alleged misrepresentation of her credentials], I read and relayed what was reported in print, on the boob tube and in discussion groups. I do not have any additional evidence just as you don't. This has been hashed out by the parties involved(Doctor Glamser, Doctor Stringer and Doctor Thames) and settled via arbitration. If the perpetrators had not been guilty then I believe that Dr Thames would have been out already. They choose to accept the bargain and that is the end of it.

Since you haven't investigated what Frank Glamser and Gary Stringer did, and you haven't availed yourself of evidence that's in the public record (most notably, the recorded broadcast of the hearing in the WUSM archives), you have been doing what you accuse the rest of us of doing: relying on hearsay and prejudice for destructive purposes.  You've come on this board accusing two professors of commiting a crime when you won't even say what crime they allegedly committed.

But that's OK, apparently, because you think it is wrong for any of us to ask questions or examine the evidence in the first place.  Only Shelby Thames and the IHL Board are entitled to do that.

As for the Board keeping Thames in power because Frank and Gary must have done wrong--the Board has also kept Thames in power despite USM's being put on probation by SACS.  Hardly a sign of unerring wisdom on the Board's part.

Dr Dvorak's case was presented and dealt with. After hearing the evidence presented, I do not believe that she lied. It was an inadvertant (and very minor) ommission. I don't think you believe she knowingly lied either. It certainly is not my responsibility to investigate her credentials anymore that it was the Doctor's responsibility to do so. Do you think that everyone in your organization(I don't know where you work) should be able to start an investigation (read 'witch hunt') involving you? Wouldn't that be, at the minimum, an ethical problem with you?

What evidence did you review?  Or is it a virtue not to examine the evidence at all (since only those in positions of authority ought to do so)?

If Angie Dvorak made an inadvertent mistake, why didn't she publicly admit it and promptly correct it?  Why did she clench her fists, turn red in the face, deny misstating anything, and demand vengeance on Frank Glamser and Gary Stringer?

And, for that matter, why isn't she still working for USM?

My view of professors who investigate administrators who lie on their resumes, when the upper administration refuses to do so, is that they are doing the right thing and the upper administration is doing the wrong thing.  You are either denying the possibility of administrative cover-ups--or accepting their existence and telling the rest of us that we must accept them.

When a professor at my institution falsely claimed on his resume that his foreign degree was the equivalent of a PhD, I supported several colleagues of his who were being clobbered because they had raised questions that the professor and several of his administrative sponsors desperately didn't want raised.  This professor sued me, though I was dropped from the case before it went to trial.  He did not ultimately prevail, and will soon be retiring.  I learned a lot about the university system where he had gotten the degree and was able to show that his degree was not the equivalent of a Ph. D.  What's more, I was able to show that he had made several other false claims (for instance, that a book of his had been selected for an impressive-sounding official reading list that does not exist).

According to the views you have been expressing here, the professor who made false claims on his resume posed no ethical problems.  Instead, the professors who dared to question these false claims were being unethical.  Other professors must either not know anything about such matters--or it is improper for them to attempt to know anything.

I'm not worried about other professors questioning my resume, because everything I say on it is truthful.  I normally assume that my colleagues are telling the truth on their resumes--and the vast majority of them are.  If someone wants to verify my degree and where I got it, more power to them.  They'll find out soon enough that there is no need to check.

Everything that goes on a faculty member or administrator's resume is public information.   Checking it out does not violate confidentiality or constitute a witch hunt.

Robert Campbell