Everyone knows that Linda is lying about there being more to
the ‘crimes’ of the UNCG 3. Everyone knows she is ‘retiring’ only because of this
latest debacle and not because she had said she was only going to work for
seven years when she came here.
Even Linda knows this, but her policy has always been to
take a hard line and to budge for nothing, even the truth.
When the judge dropped the charges, she knew then that Linda
was lying.
When in the first stage of the grievance process the
independent arbiters who heard the cases for the firing of the UNCG3 led to the
offers to rescind those firings, they knew that Linda was lying.
When the three member grievance panel heard Mason’s
fairytale about Lyda Carpen, they recognized that the things for which she had
been fired were as bogus as the possibility that Hansel & Gretel should be
tried for the murder of the witch. Their determination that the personal use of
a university issued laptop might possibly, maybe been worthy of firing
(although they even tempered that with the idea that possibly it was only worth
demotion) was their way of setting aside the merits of the case and trying to
find something that wouldn’t get them in trouble with their superiors.
You don’t go to court, let’s say, for murder and come out
with a verdict of community service for Jaywalking. Carpen was fired for
signing off on time sheets and the grievance panel found that she used a
university laptop for personal business. How is that even allowable as a
finding? Did they investigate whether she had ever gotten away with parking
overtime in a metered spot? Does she have any late library books? Did she
rewind all of the videos before she returned them to the store?
We can’t fault the panel though, in fact it seems that what
they have done is actually quite courageous. They have rejected the foundation
of Carpen’s firing – this in the face of an environment in which simple
disagreement with your superiors leads to…firing and arrest.
That has been made very clear to the staff at UNCG and the
three members of the staff panel are all very aware of the possible
consequences of making the list of those who are out of line with the
administration. You see, Mason isn’t the first bully to be brought in to clear
out a department of ‘undesirables.’ Brady operates this way and the fear and
mistrust that has been created is palpable. In an atmosphere where many have
told me that they are afraid to click ‘like’ on the UNCGcleanhouse facebook
page for fear of repercussions, you cannot say that it was ever possible for Burns,
Moore, or Williamson to give an unbiased opinion.
The Board of Trustees has a very important word in the title
of their entity that some seem to have forgotten about: Trust.
They are entrusted with the stewardship of the entire
university, not with the task of protecting the interests of the upper
administration at all costs. Their wards include the faculty, the students,
and, as is too often forgotten, the staff of the university. Rather than taking
sides, they should advocate for the most complete transparency possible in
regard to this situation. Working to get UNCG off of the front page of the
newspaper and out of the Chronicle of Higher Education isn’t going to happen by
stonewalling – everything will be known. UNCG will only resume its status by
cleaning house and setting itself in order.
Brady is leaving in July, Mason needs to leave sooner and a
message needs to be sent through the entire campus that this regime of bullying
and intimidation will be tolerated no longer; that there will be no more lies;
and that UNCG is a community of people who care for each other and for the
university as a whole.
The Board of Trustees can help to lead this rebirth or it
can find itself wishing that it had. It’s time to roll up our sleeves and not
just wash away the stains, but dig out the rot.
