H.A. Breaking News--Case against USM settled - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 8, 2006

RE: H.A. Breaking News--Case against USM settled

Date: Mar 8, 2006

again--go to the thread above. but richardson was chair for a while and wheeler for a while.

Date: Mar 8, 2006

stinky cheese man wrote:

again--go to the thread above. but richardson was chair for a while and wheeler for a while.

According to background information contained within the supreme's opinion, Wheeler was department chair when the abuse occurred. Williams filed her initial complaint with Dean Harper and Wheeler. Richardson preceeded Wheeler as chair and was initially a member of Williams' committee according to documents admitted into evidence, although he testified that he was never on her committee. What's that about?

Date: Mar 8, 2006

The taxpayers have paid for this mess.

Date: Mar 8, 2006

Was the university represented by AG office, USM lawyer, or one of the Jackson law
firms? I guess it could be all of the above.

Date: Mar 8, 2006

usm was represented by one of the jackson lawyers and usm attorneys. ag's lawyers were not involved.

Date: Mar 8, 2006

Cossack wrote:

Was the university represented by AG office, USM lawyer, or one of the Jackson law
firms? I guess it could be all of the above.

Has Kim Chaze ever been involved in an employment case against USM that his client lost?? I find it really amazing that USM spends the money to prepare for trial and then settle 2 days into testimony. Not all that unusual the settlement portion, but this case seems pretty open and shut...considering the players involved. USM attorneys opening statement as reported was pretty interesting

Hopefully we will be around when Shelby is on the stand to testify

Kim's temper and Shelby aggrogance should be quite a mix.

Date: Mar 8, 2006

Keep in mind that this particular trial is the Third one in the DW vs. USM saga - USM has appealed twice and now - on the third go 'round --it's settled. Chaze quit charging his clients by the hour long, long ago. People who sue USM now - have to prove themselves to Chaze himself, and, when he determines if the suit has legs, he takes the lawsuit on a contingency basis. I don't know of a suit in the past 10 years that he lost against this institution. It's incredible.

Date: Mar 8, 2006

chaze's record against USM is not as good as one would think. he wins the first round, typically, and then loses on appeal. there was the famous tenure case when fleming first became president--wins in the first round, loses on appeal. the williams case, begins (see the hyperlink above) asking for some $20 million, wins $800,000, on appeal loses some issues, comes back to this trial and gets a settlement. i suspect the settlement might be less than $100,000, maybe less than $50,000. from $20 million to a lot less. and if he "cherry-picks" his cases he ought to be successful--don't take on losers. and remember, settlements do not equal victories--a settlement is merely a settlement.

as to this case, settlements were offered all along, as late as about 2 weeks ago. chaze doesn't settle because he gets to present his case, gets press coverage, and then settles. open-and-shut case, i don't think so. there's a lot in the supreme court record that folks need to look at. her dissertation committee (much after stamper was removed) still wouldn't approve her dissertation. i'll leave it at that--but there's more that's not in the record.

Date: Mar 8, 2006

scm,

volley back. The win/loss record that you dispassionately dismiss involves human beings who - when Kim takes them - have a case against USM. Just because USM loves to appeal doesn't mean that USM is legally in the right. And, yes - in this state - with this university, a settlement is a WIN.

Date: Mar 8, 2006

40 love--gotta disagree but i think we agree to disagree. since over 95% of civil cases get settled, i don't see how you can say what you say. in my book a tie doesn't equal a win. i suspect in the most recent case attorney's fees almost ate up the settlement. and in this most recent case she wanted her Ph.D. didn't get it. that's a loss in my book.

Date: Mar 8, 2006

What is in the record is that a member of the department sexually harassed a graduate student. From the record, it appears she was not the first. Why am I not surprised that the department that permitted this behavior did not approve the dissertation. How do we know that the upper level administration directed that her dissertation be disapproved?

I find it ironic that this activity went on in Liberal Arts. One would expect that liberals would have higher standards in regards to harassing females than lesser enlightened colleges.

Date: Mar 8, 2006

USM thrives on immoral wins. Whatever she got, she got 2/3 rds. Whatever she spent, monetarily it doesn't begin to stack up to what it cost her emotionally. Is that a
"win" by USM? Methinks . . . not. The fact that USM couldn't win from the get-go speaks volumes about this case. Oh, I agree to disagree with you, but I will celebrate the fact that this woman's victory is that she got it settled and can get on with her life, despite the scars. I've read her case thoroughly, and I don't blame her for suing. The Thames cabal loves to say, "oh you don't know the rest of the story." Frankly, any version that the cabal has reeks of arrogance, stupidity, and immorality.

Date: Mar 8, 2006

cossack--i won't address your last paragraph. stamper's sexual harrassment was well know since i came here over 20+years ago. why faculty in english and the dean didn't stand up is an issue they have to deal with. i don't suspect many, if any, will address that issue on this board. however, after stamper was removed as chair, and a new chair was appointed, who passed away a number of years, committee members still had problems with her dissertation. and there are documents, no in the supreme court record, that reflect such a concern.

Date: Mar 8, 2006

Cossack wrote:

What is in the record is that a member of the department sexually harassed a graduate student. From the record, it appears she was not the first. Why am I not surprised that the department that permitted this behavior did not approve the dissertation. How do we know that the upper level administration directed that her dissertation be disapproved? I find it ironic that this activity went on in Liberal Arts. One would expect that liberals would have higher standards in regards to harassing females than lesser enlightened colleges.

Yeah, you'd expect higher standards from liberals...with their outstanding role models...Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton

Date: Mar 8, 2006

40 love--i don't condone or sanction sexual harrassment at all. i and others have drug students to the appropriate people to complain of it. i applaud the fact that our university has a policy that does not allow faculty and students to have adult relationships while taking classes or being on dissertation committees.

but your attempt to link this to the thames administration is lame. this happened under the lucas/huffman/harper/wheeler administration. no amount of revisionist history can change that.

Date: Mar 8, 2006

Yawn. Good ol' "boys" haven't changed their spots in decades. Fleming was an outsider, and your viewpoint is tiresome. You may have the last word.

Date: Mar 8, 2006

i'm far from a good ole boy, but it's a convenient stereotype for you.

Date: Mar 8, 2006

Dang, and I just gave you the last words seconds ago!! I never meant to imply that I thought you were a "go'b". I prefaced the post with a yawn because I'm tired.

Date: Mar 8, 2006

nd a new chair was appointed, who passed away a number of years, committee members still had problems with her dissertation. and there are documents, no in the supreme court record, that reflect such a concern.

I do not doubt that they had problems with her dissertation. I think I understand what happened. The faculty was unwilling to protect one of their graduate students from a sexual predator, but they were very zealous in enforcing the high standards of scholarship on the victim. A person could lose respect very quickly for people of that ilk. I guess compassion was not in vogue during that period. Perhaps they felt guilt, but wanted the person they let down to go away so they did not have to see that person and be reminded of how they failed her.

Date: Mar 8, 2006

cossack--i suspect you've got it right.

Date: Mar 8, 2006

Stinky Cheese Man,

Do think any of those folks are reading this Board? Better yet, do you think any of them are making comments?

Date: Mar 8, 2006

cossack--which people?

Date: Mar 8, 2006

Sorry SCM, I meant the people who failed to come to her rescue when she was being harassed, or those who decided to %&##can her dissertation?

Date: Mar 8, 2006

Advocate wrote:

She told the people who were in charge and they neglected to act. That makes them just as guilty, especially if Stamper continued to harass.

Who was President at the time this happened?

Date: Mar 8, 2006

the president at the time was lucas.

cossack--the people who failed to act were senior faculty in english. as well as a dean. now, it's easy for me to sit in judgment, but given the tenor of this board on other people and their failure to act, i think it's fair to say it's a problem lots of us have.

Date: Mar 8, 2006

I reckon so SCM.

Date: Mar 8, 2006

Isn't there a stream of research in pscyhology which has examined why bystanders don't take action or get involved? I seem to remember a case in NYC where a large group of people simply stood by and watched some one beat another to death. I think it's more than just the "diffusion of responsibility" effect, but I can't really remember details.

Date: Mar 8, 2006

oo--you're generally correct. now the real question is "what constitutes a bystander in a department?"

Date: Mar 8, 2006

stinky cheese man wrote:

oo--you're generally correct. now the real question is "what constitutes a bystander in a department?"

SCM, let me reduce your question to something specific. Who were the "bystanders" when Gary and Frank were kicked around? (a) The Department Chair, (b) The Dean, (c) The Provost, (d) All of the above, (e) None of the above, (f) Other [If "Other," specify here _______________.