54 lines
3.4 KiB
Plaintext
54 lines
3.4 KiB
Plaintext
My life has again become hectic because I was fired today. I will include
|
|
below the text of a short letter I've just written to interested parties at
|
|
Stanford. I'll post something more in a few days. I had written up an article
|
|
for Liberty Magazine that summarizes my battle with the university through
|
|
today (I did one last rewrite to add in this afternoon's results). I'll post
|
|
it as a follow-up message to this one. Here is the info letter:
|
|
|
|
Well, they actually did it. At a meeting this afternoon with Dean Gibbons and
|
|
Associate Dean Ken Down I was informed that I will no longer be working here
|
|
after May 15th. They gave me one month's severance pay.
|
|
|
|
I guess they paid attention to all of the debate over the advocacy issue, or
|
|
perhaps they just came to their senses. In the end, they did exactly what I
|
|
predicted in my letter to The Daily of two weeks ago. They expressed
|
|
concern over the advocacy issue, but they fired me for the backpack and the
|
|
alcohol incident.
|
|
|
|
They mentioned at the meeting that they could reconsider if I were to promise
|
|
to abide by the policy in the future. I asked whether they would reconsider if
|
|
I just promised to abide by the alcohol part of the policy (not providing
|
|
alcohol to minors) and they said no. I had previously told them that I'd be
|
|
willing to make such a promise, but it's clear from their response that they
|
|
claim that the backpack issue is sufficient for my termination.
|
|
|
|
Which raises an interesting question. Am I being fired over the backpack? If
|
|
so, then why didn't they fire me back in November? Why didn't they at least
|
|
contact me? The Campus Report describes Susan Hoerger as saying that
|
|
"Reges' statements in the Stanford Daily, printed on Nov. 8 and 9, 1990,
|
|
prompted discussion but no action at that time." The university claims that
|
|
government pressure and my advocacy are not the reasons they are firing me, but
|
|
then why wait until now to do so? How could I have more publicly expressed the
|
|
backpack issue than I did last November?
|
|
|
|
The university had a prepared press release (printed on color paper no less)
|
|
that they started circulating as soon as I went public (to their credit, they
|
|
waited until I went public to release it). It has two inaccuracies. I am not
|
|
guilty of "encouraging others to violate Stanford's drug and alcohol policy."
|
|
This is a subtle point, but I think it's important. When I advised the student
|
|
to try MDA, I didn't tell him to do so on campus (and it's not a violation of
|
|
the policy to do so off campus). What I have told others is that I
|
|
consider this an unjust policy, and therefore they should ignore it. I have
|
|
advised people to make whatever choices they would have made in the absence of
|
|
the policy. That's not quite the same thing as encouraging them to violate it.
|
|
The second inaccuracy was that they said that my contract was due to expire at
|
|
the end of June. According to University Guide Memo 22.8 (section 2.b.2),
|
|
"Senior lecturers and lecturers holding salaried appointments for a term of one
|
|
year shall be notified not later than March 15 if the appointment is not to be
|
|
renewed." So I could reasonably expect to be employed for another year.
|
|
|
|
I will be working up another article for The Stanford Daily this weekend.
|
|
As soon as it's done, I'll leave copies outside my door. I'll also be working
|
|
up the grievance that I intend to file. I think that one of my key points will
|
|
center on consistency (are they consistently applying the policy).
|