Spring Break
Abstract:
Facing an investigation, possible tenure-revocation and dismissal, UMKC Professors Drs. Keith Haddock and Walter S. Carlos Poston II, last week agreed to resign, effective Sept. 30.
As part of the agreement, the two, who currently serve as vice-chair and chair respectively of the Department of Informatic Medicine and Personalized Health at the School of Medicine, will not be able to seek employment in the future with the university....
Originally posted byLet the truth be heard
Giving up millions????????????????????????????
Show me one retired UMKC professor who has millions in retirement. That is just laughable.
Originally posted byLet the truth be heard
Giving up millions????????????????????????????
Show me one retired UMKC professor who has millions in retirement. That is just laughable.
Originally posted bywalks like a duck......
The "student" who Haddock is taking to Thailand---she is FROM Thailand. She can go back and stay with her family. Keep trying to hold the wool over people's eyes.
Originally posted bymo money
Drs. Garavalia and Pinkston-Camp would make even more money if the report was released. A suit based on slander and libel would be appropriately called for against those who spoke for Haddock and Poston.
Why was a second investigation called for? 1) B/C the university had not completed a full investigation the FIRST time because Darlene Scott-Scurry (previous AA officer) a)left early in the investigation to go to a new position, b) documents were uncovered revealing her obviously biased affections towards Haddock and Poston, and c) she did not interview even half of the individuals who had complaints. Next, her investigation like that of the second investigation was not transcribed, taped, or under oath. P.S., the first investigation did NOT exonerate the professors. The report tells the professors that there was indeed inappropriate behavior occurring in the lab and it would not be tolerated on UMKC soil. 2) Other students came forward after the first investigation alleging that they had been harassed, thus, Bubasz and other administrators pushed for another investigation.
And now for the second investigation. Only one person has to be hurt for sexual harassment to have occurred. So what if "70" people came forward. If one person was offended, that's all it takes for a case. Also, here's a small example of the sample interviewed: one of the "70" people interviewed was an IT staff member. He had no idea why he was being interviewed because he came into the lab maybe once a month for 5 minutes. Let's talk about the credibility of the other individuals.
Next, attacking Drs. Garavalia and Pinkston-Camp is inappropriate. Excluding the messiness on whether or not the allegations occurred, the world needs individuals who stand up for what they perceive to be inequalities.
It's funny that one poster writes in a negative manner about how she moved departments. So, did these two guys! Next, never has Pinkston-Camp been charged with harassment. It would be nice to track the IP addresses of such libel charges. Finally, why just attack these two? How about all of the other women AND men who came forward and reported their own painful cases of harassment that they experienced?
Originally posted bymo money
Point 1: The documents are there. Why do you think Haddock and Poston did not want to move forward with the next investigation involving promotion and tenure. The P and T committee has the documents, they were just waiting to share them.
Point 2: Pinkston-Camp and Garavalia did not have "everyone and their brother" interviewed. That was Haddock and Poston's side.
Point 3: Have fun stooping to such a level where you have to insult others ("in your head") - that's mature
Point 4: The statements that Haddock makes are very misleading and incorrect with regard to Ms. Hernandez's summary. She made no judgment and therefore, no one was exonerated.
Point 5: Those involved know the truth. I truly feel sorry for the families who have been lied to for years and probably will continue to be lied to.
Originally posted byWhat can we learn from this horrible case?
It would be nice if the unews would take a moment to focus on how sexual harassment is defined and that it will not be tolerated. That's what we can take from this case...what not to do. It's sad that students were subjected to this, AND hopefully as a school/community we can move forward and make sure it doesn't ever happen again. The following is from the EEOC website. Please focus on the last part--it doesn't matter how many people say something didn't happen, if one person was hurt, then yes, they could have been sexually harassed.
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.
Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following:
* The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex.
* The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee.
* The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
* Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim.
* The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome.
Notice that the description refers to the "victim" in the singular form. Only one individual has to be harassed in order for sexual harassment to have occurred.
B Paul
posted 8/18/08 @ 5:07 PM CST
"When you get tenure, you basically have a job for life," Garavalia said. "It takes almost an act of God to fire you or revoke your tenure. Who else has that type of job security in this economy? And they were making good money. So you wouldn't voluntarily give up that kind of job."
............................................
Once again Ms. Garavalia is WRONG!!!! By staying and continuing to work in this toxic environment they would make some money but lose their self respect. Why would they want to stay and work for someone (UMKC) that hides the truth. Stay and work in a job that allows anyone to allege anything and then have the emplorer reward those allegations even when they are proven not true. And why would these men of honor and intelligence and high work ethics want to continue to work in a place where people such as Ms. Garavalia only see it as guaranteed pay check. These men have worked hard all their lives to make a difference and this has shown in their work. Ms. Garavalia should just sit down and count her money and Drs. Poston and Haddock will continue to prosper in their lives and careers.