Apart from, of course, Councilwoman Blackwell's denial, which has been
widely reported but seems inconvenient to your assumptions.
I've seen that she requested help with a different type of event. Was it "a
community church rally?" .
This is not a denial that these students were not there as community service
workers. Nor is it a claim that the reported accounts by the students of
events were untrue. I've heard no one challenge any of their testaments.
Only a denial of blame or responsibility is what I saw.
We can't say with certaintty if the event was a church rally or political
rally. Because of UCD secrecy, we can't say if this was a long term policy
failure with other inappropriate work having been done or a single mistake.
I believe that there will be an effort to prove this is a single error made
by a single employee. I also believe that this most likely indicates a long
term policy failure
I think it would be wrong to accuse any individual of wrong doing when the
obvious course is to look at the policy and protocol first. UCD won't
release that and I think we from the community have the right to question
why?
The argument your advancing, that in the absence of any one challenging the
students basic account of the real occurences as they experienced them; we
must not take them at their word until proven true even without the
suggestion that their words are false. Some people, like me, think this is
a serious matter before this community and society and is an appropriate
topic for a community discussion list. Your point seems to be that it is
taboo to speak about this in any way.
I never said anything close to having 100% certainty of all facts and
responsibilities as I think you and another are suggesting. This is one
reason why I get insulting towards you.
It looks very likely that most of the students basic experiences are
believable. I'm going to believe them for now and ask questions with the
assumption that they are not lying Trustafarians. Do you understand?
You are perverting the idea of don't rush to judgement. This listserv is not
a court of law and taking the accounts as probably true until someone calls
the basic facts into question is perfectly acceptable.
I would never have immediately issued a statement showing a rush to
judgement against Mr. Fenton when the organization never issued the protocol
to the public first. I'm asking questions plus offering my opinions based
on several years observing UCD. Only the UCD has rushed to judgement by
publicly stating that an employee was placed on leave. This is a pretty
rotten rush to judgement and yet we're not allowed to see the protocol that
Mr. Fenton allegedly violated? Is it his fault if the UCD Board and
executives were too stupid to give him a clear protocol? There I go again,
another damn question.
You can't make me or others stop thinking and talking, Cassidy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle Cassidy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <UnivCity@list.purple.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 1:12 PM
Subject: RE: [UC] The UCD answer
Apart from, of course, Councilwoman Blackwell's denial, which has been
widely reported but seems inconvenient to your assumptions.
-----Original Message-----
Glenn said:
"Not a single denial of the student accounts has been made..."
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.3/824 - Release Date: 5/29/2007
1:01 PM
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
