Bill Sanderson wrote:
How many people here--including Al Krigman--would expect an employer to
publicly discuss an issue with an employee that might have serious
consequences for both?
Sure--the employee has been asked not to comment publicly. Sure, the
consequences should he do so are likely to be the obvious. How is this
different from any other employer any of us have worked for?
ok bill, I'll take a stab at it.
first, I believe you may be misreading what some of the
concerns are. it's not that people expect an employer to
publicly discuss an issue with an employee, or even that
there are aspects of the process that are confidential. it's
that ucd has allowed for some of this to be public (in
arenas it can't control), and for some of this not to be
made public (in arenas it can control) [and see sharreiff's
post for examples]. it's that ucd is conducting an
investigation of itself by itself (rather than by a neutral
3rd party). it's that ucd has yet to publicly own the two
statements it has released publicly. and so the whole
situation becomes 'trial-by-newspaper' / 'appeal by
petition', and in the process ucd unwittingly puts itself on
trial. people feel entitled to keep asking questions and
taking sides so long as ucd gives the appearance that it is
not communicating directly while allowing certain statements
to be selectively released in public.
second, penn has had several examples in recent years of its
own employees, students, administrators and faculty involved
in crimes, scandals, wrongdoings. to get an idea of how a
non-profit, public-image-is-paramount institution handles
situations like these, look at their coverage in penn
publications, look at how the situations are handled by
third parties, look at how all this is publicly available.
it's embarrassing, to be sure, and not a little messy, and
damned inconvenient -- but you can be sure penn doesn't send
someone around to select neighborhood meetings reading
statements that don't appear in its own publications
(print/online), nor does penn drop statements to obscure
philly rags as if they were real-time conversations, and you
can be sure penn expects that readers and writers of the
penn gazette, the dp, and the chronicle of higher education
will weigh in, online and off. for example.
..................
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN
[aka laserbeam®]
[aka ray]
SERIAL LIAR. CALL FOR RATES.
"It is very clear on this listserve who
these people are. Ray has admitted being
connected to this forger." -- Tony West
----
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>.
