Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

The basic problem here is that neither side has stated their case, let alone which facts are agreed upon and which facts are at issue.

IANAL, but I have to say that anyone trying to figure out what is going on at Ave Maria Law is ill served by your statement, Novak’s statement, and the MOJ statement. Even taking them all together, it’s impossible to discern what the dispute really is.

Perhaps you are trying to communicate only with those who have been following these issues with singlemindedness, in which case my confusion is not material to what you’re trying to do.

Frankly, I left the Catholic Church when its minions kept trying to kill members of my unit in its flirtation with “Liberation Theology.” SInce then, the Church has been on a downhill slide here in New England.

(To twist an old law-school aphorism, “You can sue the Bishop of Boston for buggery, and you CAN collect.") But apart from that, certainly many Catholics make it their practice to live a Christian life and improve the world whilst maintaining their souls, and it’s depressing to see what should be a force for good (this Catholic law school) mired in internecine squabbles.

On the other hand, if they start praising that cretin Berrigan, it’s time to pull the plug.

The MOJ statement admits the signers did not have all the facts. Given that this was a personnel matter, there is no question you did not have all the facts. You likely only heard one side of the story, from Meyers or Safranek. You did not hear and would not hear the other side precisely becuase this is a personnel matter and under threat of litigation. You should not have rushed to judgement. I am particularly ashamed of some of the signers (Araujo and Stith) who have known Bernie Dobranski for years yet did not even call him prior to signing.

Finally, your statement and continued commenting on this is contributing to a public scandal in that you are giving aid and comfort to a vicious and profoundly vulgar website called Fumare. At the very least you should disassociate yourself from that vicious band of barbarians.

I could see Dean Dobranski saying that the substantive facts of the case are confidential, but since when are the procedures followed a matter that a school keeps confidential?

If the school really did observe the norms of due process in its actions, why in the world wouldn’t the Dean simply show how and when it had done so?  If there was a faculty committee that met and decided on Safranek’s suspenion, wouldn’t it be simple to just point that out without going into any details?  Why wouldn’t those faculty members that served on such a hypothetical committee simply refute the claim? If there are standing rules for handling such matters (as most schools have) why not simply point to the rules that were used?

The answer is pretty simple - because there were no such committtees and no such procedures used in these matters.  And everyone on the faculty knows it, as does the Dean.

KOB, I’m with you… I’m thoroughly confused. I started following this issue a few weeks ago and as far as I can tell, both sides in this dispute hate each other passionately but nobody seems to be backing up their allegations with facts…

From my perspective, the faculty members and their supporters are up in arms because they don’t feel the board pays enough attention to them, they’re mad that some colleagues weren’t rubber stamped for tenure (and one was terminated), and they don’t want to move to Florida.  This smacks of a misplaced sense of entitlement that is, to say the least, off-putting. 

The Administration and the Trustees, on the other hand, haven’t done a very good job of explaining their side either, so they appear insensitive to the concerns and allegations of faculty and alums. That’s off-putting as well.

Bottom line, the school has by-laws, and there are state and federal employment laws-- assuming those were followed with respect to decisions about moving the campus, granting tenure, and terminating the former employee, then the Board appears to have acted appropriately when it made its decisions.

Now, faculty’s supporters will be quick to bring up “academic freedom” and ABA accrditation policies, which is certainly germane to this discussion, but the ABA doesn’t carry the force of law in this country. All the ABA can do is yank the school’s accreditation and, if that happens, then the Board must be held accountable.

For now, however, I believe a lot of the venom can be drained out of this civil war if everyone involved will make factual arguments rather than emotional allegations. But then, isn’t that what Novak was trying to say?

The other thing the Dean could do to clear up this whole matter would be to release the 15 factual findings that the ABA relied on in holding that the school has not demonstrated compliance with ABA standards on accreditation. The specific standard that the ABA believes the school is out of compliance on is failure to “establish and maintain conditions adequate to attract and retain a competent faculty.” The comments on this standard include the requirement of tenure and promotion rules.

If none of the factual findings (that grew out of a year long, fair procedure) support the faculty’s claims, that would be strong evidence that these allegations are unfounded.  But only the Dean can release that information and he is refusing to release it.  Why?

Procedures are kept confidential when they are under threat of litigation. And, are you sure that proper tenure procedures were not followed for the specific guidelines that govern Ave Maria? You assume so. Do you know?

As to the 15 findings of fact from anonymous. I do not know that your specific accusation is correct. If it is correct, you are either with the ABA or with the law school administration, both unlikely. You might be one of the unhappy law professors or Fumare weirdos who is making this stuff up, as seems to be their want. No matter. The fact is, a group of anonymous professors made numerous complaints to the ABA the purpose of which was to get their own school stripped of acceditation --- that is so odd --- and of all the complaints a single one was given credence for which the school must answer by December 15. As Clarence Thomas said upon hearing he had passed the Senate for confirmation, “Whoop-dee-damn-doo.” The school will answer and move on.

There is a concerted effort here by unhappy faculty and clearly unbalanced alums (Fumare) to burn the school down.