|
My Imaginary GF posted:Even if the Board issued its statements solely due to objections raised by the University's fundraising department, that is consistent with this board's fiduciary obligations as executuve agents appointed by the governor. Yes, it really is a no-win situation for Salaita. There are several constitutional mechanisms for redress, if individuals wish to afford university faculty in Illinois additional protections as state contractors. Are you trying to argue with a straight face that the "unfitness for position" mentioned in the academic freedom statement is meant to include deleterious effects on the appointing university's funding? Do you think that you're going to be able to get away with straight-up fabrication again?
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
falcon2424 posted:When he signed the offer letter, Salaita believed he was accepting at least an interim contract. This was clearly the dean's intention too. Then: offer + acceptance + consideration = employment contract. UIUC policy is that academic contracts need to be terminated through non-reappointment or dismissal. Non-reappointment is incoherent and requires notice. Dismissal has a formal process. That gives Salaita a solid wrongful termination argument. It might only apply to the year appointment, but it's definitely there. The key issue is that there was no exchange of consideration, and the contract acceptance is disputed. If Salaita had been working at the university for a term and then was told that actually his contract was rejected, that'd be a completely different story. Similarly it'd be different if the university had returned the contract as being fully ratified, but then later changed their minds. But that's not what happened. Kaal fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:Are you trying to argue with a straight face that the "unfitness for position" mentioned in the academic freedom statement is meant to include deleterious effects on the appointing university's funding? Do you think that you're going to be able to get away with straight-up fabrication again? If we're being completely blunt and honest, isn't that how academia works, both for potential hires and potential students?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:If we're being completely blunt and honest, isn't that how academia works, both for potential hires and potential students? So your contention is that the quoted statement on academic freedom is not actually supposed to be about academic freedom, and that its authors, when they penned their manifesto on ethics of the academy, implicitly meant to bracket it with "unless it costs too much money?" Why should anyone take you seriously, again?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Imaginary GF reminds me of the kind of people at parties who tell me in a really loud voice that they know exactly how to fix American high schools AND higher ed and then proceed to spout a bunch of colossal nonsense based on how they think education works when really they don't have a loving clue. Then they dig their heels in when people like myself or other teachers explain to them exactly why they're wrong and crazy. To add to the thread: Imaginary GF, do you think it's appropriate for public universities to make firing decisions on whether or not the donors and alumni approve?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The current Undergraduate Chair at the UP English department is an Associate Professor, which is at least a tenured position. As opposed to an Assistant Professor which is not. And the Department Chair is of course a full, distinguished professor. University of Pennsylvania is a fine school, but of course the English department is not particularly large with only about 400 undergraduate majors. Compare that to UPenn's business school that has 4,000 undergraduate majors, and the staff to match. Your original post was, and I quote: quote:I suppose the terminology varies by school, but assistant professors are tenure-tracked, not tenured, and I've never heard of a dean who was less than a full professor - and usually significantly more experienced than that. You said you've never heard of a dean who was less than a full professor, and there you go, a dean that's not a full professor. This nonsense about Assistant Professors has nothing to do with that. Or are you moving the goalposts as to what you deem is a dean? Does it have to be the chair of an entire department? Or a whole school? Because within the University I guarantee you that is not what is normally considered a dean-level position. Also comparison of the English department to the business school is laughable -- the English department is just one department within the larger School of Arts and Sciences, the Wharton School of Business is an entire college. Every school and department is going to have its own group of deans at different levels--and they're not all full professors. A more apt comparison would be the English department and the Accounting department (and if size is your sticking point, again that would be a poor comparison--the School of Arts and Sciences has about triple the undergraduate body size of Wharton, and English is one of the larger departments therein) You're either grossly ignorant about how academia works or being willfully disingenuous--take your pick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:Serious question: do you really think it's appropriate -- in a case like this where communications with donors who threatened to withdraw funding for political reasons were uncovered -- to take UIUC's justification for taking no action on Salaita's hiring at face value? If so, why? Because he has decided that they are powerful, hence the good guys, everything they do they do in good faith, everything they say has to be taken at face value, all other information needs to be ignored, contravening information fabricated from whole cloth if needed. It's a pattern that has been repeated in the I/P thread, as well. Kaal posted:The key issue is that there was no exchange of consideration, and the contract acceptance is disputed. If Salaita had been working at the university for a term and then was told that actually his contract was rejected, that'd be a completely different story. Similarly it'd be different if the university had returned the contract as being fully ratified, but then later changed their minds. But that's not what happened. Classes were already scheduled with him teaching them. There is not dispute that the contract was accepted by his department.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
The issue of legality seems somewhat secondary to the fact that this was unethical and massively violated academic freedom. Many of the protections that keep academia a viable place for inquiry are protected by custom and interest groups rather than by laws. The AAUP statement on this is pretty clear, and several departments within U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign apparently voted to express no confidence in the university's chancellor. Academia is already under grave attack by cuts from state legislatures, technocrats who want to replace college courses with MOOCs and the administrators whose salaries and numbers seem to mysteriously grow by the year. The last thing we need is to throw academic freedom under the bus too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
http://illinois.edu/lb/article/5198/87007 All worth reading, but here's a choice quote quote:We have discovered that the Chancellor HAS FORWARDED Professor Salaita's appointment to the Board of Trustees, and they will be voting on his appointment during the Board of Trustees Meeting on September 11th, on the UIUC campus!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
A group of students who met with Chancellor Wise today report that she has agreed to forward his appointment to the Board of Trustees for their meeting on September 11. It's still not clear whether this is a sign that they are reversing their decision, or whether they want to say "look, we brought it to the BoT but they voted no", but it's an interesting development. e:fb
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Shinobo posted:To add to the thread: Imaginary GF, do you think it's appropriate for public universities to make firing decisions on whether or not the donors and alumni approve? Firing? No. Hiring? Yes. Personally, I'd rather hear others solutions at parties than tell my own.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Thanks for your really useful information. Let's keep comparing wildly disparate organizations and positions as if they're all the same. I mean a departmental dean, a school dean, and a university dean, are all exactly the same. Now I know that a brand-new professor is just as important as a university provost, because they both are professors and both have tenure they don't and they aren't. Heck, I'm sure there's a grad student out there who's in charge of something, that probably makes him a senior professor too, I mean they're all teachers right? edit: In fact I know a few schools that refer to all of their student advisers as being deans. We should probably throw those in too. Or anyone who's name is Dean. Or Deanne, just to avoid sexism. Kaal fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Firing? No. Hiring? Yes. Oh my.... You're pretty brave to keep digging. I want to reiterate that I said "public" universities. Private universities I believe operate (and should continue to do so) under relatively similar constraints, but it's possible someone could construct an argument that they should have looser controls than publics. I'd like to see it because I imagine it wouldn't be very good. Just to clarify: you honestly believe that public universities should take into account the attitudes of various donors and alumni when considering whether or not to hire someone? Not as a niggling minor detail to be considered along their effectiveness as an instructor, their reputation as a scholar, and their fit for the department team, but as something serious enough that higher administrators should be allowed to cancel those decisions? Let's also just ignore for the fact that you're trying (again it seems) to make the conversation about a "hiring" decision when it's clear and people have explained over and over and over again that he quite technically was already "hired" in every sense and understanding of the word and was just waiting for paperwork to process. Hence why he might have a wrongful termination suit that would be very stacked in his favor. Anyone else want to help explain why this attitude about alumni and donors having those sort of control is the equivalent to telling a Fortune 500 company that their hiring decisions for CEOs should be up for public control rather than the Board of Directors in craziness? Edit: Let me add a tertiary question. Could you rank for me the relative influence you think each donor or alumnus should have? Like, if I gave ten million to the university but was a terrible student and have basically embarrassed myself and my alma mater as a functioning member of society, do I have more pull than someone who only gave one million dollars but was an excellent student and is a model citizen? What about people who just donate to the university but weren't actually students? Are they higher or lower on the totem pole? Shinobo fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Like it or not, anyone who thinks that money and donors have no bearing on university hiring policies or decisions is simply out of touch. Come back to the real world, not the land of fantasy where universities have no other mission than helping wise teachers to educate clever pupils.
Kaal fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Like it or not, anyone who thinks that money and donors have no bearing on university hiring policies or decisions is simply out of touch. I didn't say NO bearing. I said enough bearing to make a higher administrator cancel a department's hiring decision. As in, more bearing than any of the other, clearly more important factors I mentioned. Or would you like to claim that donor considerations outweigh the stuff I mentioned?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Shinobo posted:Edit: Let me add a tertiary question. Should a board of a public university not take into consideration funding impacts of potential hires? You can't have a school if you have no money. And when donors after whom departments are named voice their deep concerns with a potential hire who has expressed clear and public opinions that are uncivil and felt derogatory to a particular minority group, yes, that should be taken into consideration during the hiring process by the boars. That's their legal obligation; if a board did not take that into consideration, it is acting in an unethical--and, arguably, illegal--manner. People can masturbate over the sanctity of their imagined and non-existant pure academy, or they can admit that this is how things are done in the real world and that if you want to be hired, don't express opinions which offend your hiring power structure and can be argued are uncivil towards all individuals of a minority group. It's as simple as Salaita not tweeting his offensive remarks until after he had received board approval, or be willing to accept that the board may deny him for any reason. E: Kaal posted:Like it or not, anyone who thinks that money and donors have no bearing on university hiring policies or decisions is simply out of touch. Come back to the real world, not the land of fantasy where universities have no other mission than helping wise teachers to educate clever pupils. Essentially, this. Maintaining donor relations is part of the job responsibility of tenured faculty, whether they like it or not. If you hold views that upset donors, don't express them in a derogatory or otherwise stupid manner. Nobody gives a poo poo if you're a bigot; everyone gives a poo poo if you're a stupid bigot. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Shinobo posted:I didn't say NO bearing. I said enough bearing to make a higher administrator cancel a department's hiring decision. As in, more bearing than any of the other, clearly more important factors I mentioned. Or would you like to claim that donor considerations outweigh the stuff I mentioned? You seem hopelessly idealistic. I don't know what part, if any, donors played in this particular affair, but if you're a school/department/whatever dean and you're concerned that a potential hire is going to drive off your primary grant donors, then that is going to have a pretty significant impact on the decision. It's not the only element, but money is omnipresent in university policy these days and it could definitely cause an administrator to slow down a hiring process and reexamine it. Welcome to the world where people get hired simply because of how much grant money they can generate. Kaal fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Should a board of a public university not take into consideration funding impacts of potential hires? You can't have a school if you have no money. And when donors whom departments are named voice their deep concerns with a potential hire who has expressed clear and public opinions that are uncivil and felt derogatory to a particular minority group, yes, that should be taken into consideration during the hiring process by the boars. That's their legal obligation; if a board did not take that into consideration, it is acting in an unethical--and, arguably, illegal--manner. Fortunately, other academics are leading to the BoT decision having other detrimental consequences on UIUC, such as boycotts and cancellations of academic events. The donors are welcome to enjoy the empty, unused halls named after them. Kaal posted:You seem hopelessly idealistic. I don't know what part, if any, donors played in this particular affair, but if you're a school/department/whatever dean and you're concerned that a potential hire is going to drive off your primary grant donors, then that is going to have a pretty significant impact on the decision. It's not the only element, but money is omnipresent in university policy these days and it could definitely cause an administrator to slow down a hiring process and reexamine it. If you're a dean, maybe. This particular dean disagreed with you, however, as they hired Salaita.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Like it or not, anyone who thinks that money and donors have no bearing on university hiring policies or decisions is simply out of touch. Come back to the real world, not the land of fantasy where universities have no other mission than helping wise teachers to educate clever pupils. This isn't some discussion in a vacuum about the relationship between academic policy and university donors. This is specifically about MIGF's bizarre contention that one of the "rare" extramural utterances that bear upon a faculty member's fitness for a position mentioned in the 1940 statement on academic freedom is when said faculty member pisses off a donor. This is stupid as hell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:This isn't some discussion in a vacuum about the relationship between academic policy and university donors. This is specifically about MIGF's bizarre contention that one of the "rare" extramural utterances that bear upon a faculty member's fitness for a position mentioned in the 1940 statement on academic freedom is when said faculty member pisses off a donor. That's exactly what makes it a "rare" extramural utterance
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:If you're a dean, maybe. This particular dean disagreed with you, however, as they hired Salaita. Evidently not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:That's exactly what makes it a "rare" extramural utterance No, I don't think you're understanding what GrumpyDoc is saying. He is saying that the idea that one of the "rare" utterances is one that pisses off a donor is pretty clearly NOT what was meant when that was written in 1940. That doesn't make this particular instance a "rare" occurrence. It makes it a stupid as hell mistake and unethical action.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Evidently not. The Chancellor refused to forward the hire to the Board of Trustees, going against the judgment of the Dean and the American Indian Studies department.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Evidently not. Here. This might help. http://www.news-gazette.com/sites/all/files/pdf/2014/08/13/14-529.Documents.pdf The first page of the hiring acceptance letter posted:Office of the Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Science, Signed by the Interim Dean The last letter discussing the firing/removal/whatever posted:Office of the Vice President of Student Affairs, signed by the Chancellor and Vice President
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
My point is that Salaita never ended up being hired, you dorks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
Kaal posted:My point is that Salaita never ended up being hired, you dorks. But that has no bearing on the point the guy you quoted was making?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
Kaal posted:My point is that Salaita never ended up being hired, you dorks. This is what I was replying to, you disingenuous dweeb: Kaal posted:You seem hopelessly idealistic. I don't know what part, if any, donors played in this particular affair, but if you're a school/department/whatever dean and you're concerned that a potential hire is going to drive off your primary grant donors, then that is going to have a pretty significant impact on the decision. It's not the only element, but money is omnipresent in university policy these days and it could definitely cause an administrator to slow down a hiring process and reexamine it. Welcome to the world where people get hired simply because of how much grant money they can generate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
I do find it rather funny that the same folks who exhibit such a fundamental lack of self control in their posting here are also the ones most vehemently supporting a guy who exhibited that exact kind of failing and got censured for it. Some people just can't accept the elementary idea that it's not what you say, it's how you say it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Uh, no, the Dean agreed with Salaita's hire. That's not the timeline. October 2013: The interim CoLA dean initiated negotiations with Salaita to recommend him to the Board for hire in a tenured faculty position, to be done on 18 August 2014. June/July 2014: Salaita tweeted uncivil commentary that students, alumni, and financial contributors to the university expressed their revulsion towards and detailed their interpretation of as anti-semitism. August 2014: The Board instructs its designated agent (Wise) that it does not intend to approve Salaita's nomination for faculty position; in standard UofI operating procedure, Wise withdraws Salaita's name from consideration for appointment at the 18 August board meeting. Today: Having received a petition from students, Wise will recommend that Salaita's name be included on the agenda for 11 September 2014's board meeting. E: Shinobo posted:Here. This might help. Deans do not have the authority to award state contracts in Illinois. Do you want more patronage in this state? E: Kaal posted:I do find it rather funny that the same folks who exhibit such a fundamental lack of self control in their posting here are also the ones most vehemently supporting a guy who exhibited that exact kind of failing and got censured for it. Some people just can't accept the elementary idea that it's not what you say, it's how you say it. Its almost as if some individuals in this thread have had more experience dealing with board matters than others. E2: Not one utterance. Three. Three separate utterances does not a "rare" act make. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Kaal posted:My point is that Salaita never ended up being hired, you dorks. Except he DID get hired. I mean, how are you not understanding this? He was hired, with all the proper things that have happened for dare I say literally every professor in American education happening and then had the rug pulled out from under him by a person who is typically not involved in the hiring process except in a rubberstamp manner. How can we explain it so it makes sense? This argument isn't about whether or not he got hired. He WAS hired. This argument is about whether or not his dismissal was improper based on the protections and limits of academic freedom. Edit: quote:Deans do not have the authority to award state contracts in Illinois. Do you want more patronage in this state? Deans are the ones who tell the BoT and the other people who CAN award state contracts who to award the state contracts to. This in some way like a member of the electoral college not voting how their they're supposed to in the Presidential election. Can they do it? Sure they can. Would it be really unethical and totally bizarre if they did? Absolutely. Shinobo fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I do find it rather funny that the same folks who exhibit such a fundamental lack of self control in their posting here are also the ones most vehemently supporting a guy who exhibited that exact kind of failing and got censured for it. Some people just can't accept the elementary idea that it's not what you say, it's how you say it. My expectations for the pomp and circumstance of people's expression on loving twitter are pretty low, yeah. Also, people have done much worse and in much more serious venues and have kept their jobs, and these have been cited in this thread before. My God man, how can people not remain robotically civil on a COMEDY FORUM! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:That's not the timeline. As an addendum, I believe that technically the position was supposed to begin January 2014, and Salaita requested that it be pushed back to this Fall in order for him to finish out the Spring term at Virginia Tech. He's probably regretting that decision a little bit right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Kaal posted:My point is that Salaita never ended up being hired, you dorks.  In any event, UIUC's Board of Trustees will in fact consider this on September 11, so maybe they've given up after either the lawyers got done yelling at them, or the reality of the boycott and the trouble they'll have governing the university moving forward settled in. Or, maybe they're just gunning to make it look extra official, in which case lawsuits ahoy! Kaal posted:I do find it rather funny that the same folks who exhibit such a fundamental lack of self control in their posting here are also the ones most vehemently supporting a guy who exhibited that exact kind of failing and got censured for it. Some people just can't accept the elementary idea that it's not what you say, it's how you say it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I do find it rather funny that the same folks who exhibit such a fundamental lack of self control in their posting here are also the ones most vehemently supporting a guy who exhibited that exact kind of failing and got censured for it. Some people just can't accept the elementary idea that it's not what you say, it's how you say it. I find it interesting that you can be this smug after being proven wrong at every turn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:The powerful get to act civil and look at the people being squished under their boots and go "oh my why are you so angry? Looks like you've got some growing up to do." I believe the quote goes: "It's not that the world is out to get you, it's just that you're an rear end in a top hat."
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
A lesson you should really take to heart Kaal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I believe the quote goes: "It's not that the world is out to get you, it's just that you're an rear end in a top hat." There is not an  big enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Essentially, this. Maintaining donor relations is part of the job responsibility of tenured faculty, whether they like it or not. If you hold views that upset donors, don't express them in a derogatory or otherwise stupid manner. Nobody gives a poo poo if you're a bigot; everyone gives a poo poo if you're a stupid bigot. Wait a sec here, this isn't true. I used to work at a university and worked pretty closely with the Alumni affairs/endowment development departments and from my experience at least, nothing could be further from the truth. The faculty has about as much to do with donor relations as your average college student does. The dev/alumni relations part was on the business side and the faculty was entirely on the academic side. Like, they have completely different hierarchies and are totally separate. One answered to the president and the other to the provost with no overlap. The folks that manage donor relations and endowment development IME are primarily other alumni and administrative types and have zero to do with the faculty. I'd be surprised if the average faculty member had any idea what was going on there. About the only time that faculty deal with fundraising is with the grants that they write for their research--the University gets a cut of whatever they manage to pull in. That's what's so bizarre about this case to me--I don't know if my school was any different but it seems like a massive overreach for one branch to be interfering with the operation of the other like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Actually that's not clear and it's the position of the AAUP that he in fact was hired Assuming the AAUP's position holds up in court, Salaita would be hired for a one-year, non-tenured position and be subject to board approval for anything beyond that. Further, he would likely face an internal disciplinary committee hearing on his actions. That's why he's sueing for promissory estoppel: if he was hired, he'd be fired. Oh, and "Governor Quinn appoints board that hires anti-semite at UofI" is the likely headline if the board does approve of Salaita. Quinn loses, their reimbursement from the state goes way down under Rauner until he can stack the place with his guys. But he's really only interested in governor for 2 years, so why does Rauner give a poo poo about UofI's long-term finances? And pretty much. Don't like it? Become powerful and change the rules or play by the rules. Can't? Too bad, don't life when you face consequences for your tweets. E: Genpei Turtle posted:That's what's so bizarre about this case to me--I don't know if my school was any different but it seems like a massive overreach for one branch to be interfering with the operation of the other like that. Realtalk: Uni's wanting to get rid of its indian studies department. Can't this year without looking like too big of assholes. Its politics, and played drat well. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Assuming the AAUP's position holds up in court, Salaita would be hired for a one-year, non-tenured position and be subject to board approval for anything beyond that. quote:Further, he would likely face an internal disciplinary committee hearing on his actions. That's why he's sueing for promissory estoppel: if he was hired, he'd be fired. And that committee would probably rule in his favor as he did not overstep any bounds and there was no reasonable concern that in his private acts as a citizen he was falsely claiming to represent UIUC in any way. quote:Oh, and "Governor Quinn appoints board that hires anti-semite at UofI" is the likely headline if the board does approve of Salaita. Quinn loses, their reimbursement from the state goes way down under Rauner until he can stack the place with his guys. But he's really only interested in governor for 2 years, so why does Rauner give a poo poo about UofI's long-term finances? And the headline if his dismissal remains in place is "UIUC loses departments and outside visitors due to unwarranted reneging on tenure hire promise". How long is it going to sustain donors and State funding like that? quote:And pretty much. Don't like it? Become powerful and change the rules or play by the rules. Can't? Too bad, don't life when you face consequences for your tweets. We already know how you think you're going to become powerful. Make sure to get tested for Hep C on the reg. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:53
|
|