more on previous post, found this: UC Panel Concludes No Retaliation Against Professor
'The review team found that the email was actually sent on Sept. 30, whereas the opinion piece was published in print and online on Oct. 1." -a question- It was published on that date, but when was the material provided to the paper?
“Wilkes called the report “superficial” and some of the information, “totally fabricated.” Although there were three people on the panel, he only met with two of them.
"The provost's independent review committee found Dr. Wilkes' allegations that his academic freedom was violated to be groundless, and thus rejected the key findings of the Academic Senate's Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility," Levine said. "Moreover, nobody has ever asserted that my Oct. 19, 2010 letter to Dr. Wilkes was inaccurate in any respect, and I respectfully disagree that the letter was inappropriate."
“I’m extremely disappointed by the report,” Wilkes said. “And I’m concerned it doesn't really bode well for academic freedom.”
Gregory Pasternack, a hydrology professor who chairs the committee on academic freedom, also blasted the review.
"The faculty saw through thin excuses, while this review merely parrots and accepts them with no scrutiny or common sense,” he said.
Calling academic freedom “of paramount importance to the vitality of our academic community,” Hexter pledged in a news release that he and Chancellor Linda Katehi will continue to work collaboratively with the Academic Senate to affirm “the right of all faculty to publish scholarly articles and professional expert commentaries on controversial topics.”
“No university communication should convey even the appearance of impropriety with regard to academic freedom,” Hexter said.
As a first step, Hexter said he and the chancellor will host a campus wide discussion of academic freedom.
here is the UC Davis press release mentioned above:
Chancellor, Provost Reiterate Commitment To Academic Freedom
"While the independent review team found that the majority of allegations could not be sustained, it characterized an Oct. 19, 2010, letter from a health system attorney to Wilkes as inappropriate."
it includes what they call "The Review Teams Findings of Fact"
and here is: the original SF Chronicle piece that is at the heart of it.
- Richard Blum (AGAIN!)
- Wm. De La Pena
- Gareth Elliott
- George Kieffer
- Sherry Lansing (AGAIN!)
- Monica Lozano (AGAIN!)
- Hadi Makarechian
- Eloy Ortiz Oakley
- Norman Pattiz (AGAIN!)
- John A. Pérez
- Bonnie Reiss
- Richard Sherman
- Bruce Varner
- Charlene Zettel
- VACANT (M Anguiano?)
- VACANT (L Park?)
- UC Regents Committees
- Staff Advisors, Faculty Reps, Designates
- Ex Officio UC Regents
- UC Alumni Regents
- VACANT (E Tauscher?)
- VACANT (H Guber?)
- Paul Monge
"If the University were a business, it would likely be the largest corporation in California."
"If The University Were A Business, It Would Likely Be The Largest Corporation In California"-Regents Minutes (2010)