Hi, all. I know this is going back a few weeks, but they just announced a report coming up on All Thing's Considered (I'm in PA and it's 4 right now - so I assume a later air time for the west coast). It's about our very own Dr. Jim Gundlach and Auburn football - thought some of you might be interested. Sorry for the OT subject just in case!
The story can be heard by going to this npr.org site:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyIdW03951Brian On 8/24/06, Tara Kollas wrote: <Snip>
I hate to say it, but the more I read about this subject in the press, the more Jim loses credibility. It just seems like fighting between two professors, and Jim decided to bring out the big guns. His story seems to change with the day, and the story looks to be a boring story made interesting with a weak connection to athletics. I would love to hear from Jim on this subject. Daniel
I can't imagine why he'd want to talk to you; it sounds like your mind is made up. If you're going to question someone's credibility, don't you think some specifics might be required? Otherwise it looks like you're just taking shots. Dave S. Daniel Newton wrote: <Snip>
Please examine the below direct quotes from Jim in Alabama newspapers. These were found through Google, so anyone can read the articles if they wish. "I have never said this was something that was done specifically for athletes," Gundlach said. "My concern was that the athletes were something that was going to call attention to it and lead to embarrassing situations. If the athletes weren't there, nobody would care. "Since I've been thinking about the athletic rules and other such things, it is clear that everything Petee did for athletes was also available for other students. In terms of the letter of NCAA regulations, there are probably no problems." The trouble started, Gundlach said, after Petee was named interim chair. Gundlach said he couldn't be quiet as the department of which he is director was marginalized. "If anything is at the core of my discontent with Petee, it is that," Gundlach said. "Most of the student hours come from the teaching of intro sociology. That income is increasingly going toward supporting criminology and social work rather than sociology. We have people who have not really had any classes in that area beginning to teach sociology classes. It's just, if you will, a takeover of sociology by criminology." "My agenda in this whole thing is Petee has proven himself unfit to be a department administrator," Gundlach said.
I've read the newpaper quotes that you've provided below. Do you really believe newpaper coverage of a story to be reliable and complete enough to judge the whistle blower's character? If we accept the portions of articles below at face value, we will accept that Prof. Gundlach had reason to question Prof. Petee's abilities prior to this event. As I read it, this event was a subsequent reason to question his abilities. I don't see from the quotes below, nor the NPR item how "his story seems to change with the day". Dave S. Daniel Newton wrote: <Snip>
On 8/24/06, Maryann & Dave Schellenberg wrote: <Snip> It really bugs me that nobody is ever allowed to change their mind, as the facts or their *understanding of the facts* change. Emerson said it very well: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines" Or, as Stephen Colbert put it about our President, "He believes the same thing on Wednesday that he believed on Monday no matter what happened Tuesday." Reasonable people can change their minds! It's not weakness, it's not waffling, it's not flip-flopping! Sigh... =Spencer
Everything I have ever read or heard from Jim is flush with integrity and foundation. The fact that Jim never came to this forum for support is interesting as well. He has taken his stance in the context of his university role, and done so both ethically and judiciously, apparently without the intent to inflame or tarnish another. What I know of Jim is enough for me to be very comfortable supporting him, even without his having to prove his case to me. To challenge Jim on the basis of news reporting is rather foolish and naive. Consider your sources. Brett On 8/24/06, Maryann & Dave Schellenberg wrote: <Snip> -- Cheers, Brett
While I am not sure why you are acting as Jim's defender, I believe the provided quotes show that the story was not about athletics at all. The problem at Auburn was an academic one, and if it were approached in that sense, there would be no problem. However, Jim decided, it seems to me at least, to take the story and morph it into an athletic scandal in order to realize the largest amount of press on the subject, as is evidenced by the first quote. The final two quotes are where I loose respect for Jim in this instance. He clearly states his agenda all along was to show the world that Professor Peete was a poor administrator who took money from the sociology department and used it to "support criminology and social work rather than sociology." For some reason Jim felt the need to drag an institution through the mud because his department head was allocating more funds to his own area of expertise, criminology. This just does not seem right to me. I very well may be alone in this but, there is no reason for a professor of an academic institution to intentionally smear the name of the entire university and its, seemingly, innocent athletic program because he does no like the way his department is run. I am not exonerating Auburn University in this matter, it was an embarrassing academic problem. I do feel, however, that there were better ways of handling the situation in order to prevent dragging the entire university through the mud. By the way, all the information I have on this subject came from various newspapers (NYT, Huntsville Times, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Birmingham News, etc). I am a fan of college athletics and found the story to be very compelling. As such I have attempted to follow it as best I can. Special attention has been paid to the direct quotes from Jim and I have arrived at this conclusion. If Jim wishes to shed more light on the situation I would be more that happy to amend this conclusion.
Brett, I do not understand how believing a direct quote from a newspaper article from Jim could be considered foolish. I do know that Jim is a contributer here and that there is no reason to question his integrity on this forum. However, I feel that Jim had a single end in mind and appeared to take any necessary measures in order to accomplish that end. I do not agree with that at all. That is my one and only point. Daniel
I don't have time to go into many details about this but suffice it to say that sometimes when I said the same thing to two different reporters, what comes out often looks like I said two entirely different things. In general the coverage in the New York Times, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, The Birmingham News, the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, and NPR are accurate, what came out of The Huntsville Times was something else entirely. I will note that the Huntsville Times spread the lie that I did this because I was upset because Petee beat me in the contest for department chair. I never ran for chair and the Huntsville Times did not bother to "fact check" before publishing it. I know from other reporters that this lie came from PR types in Auburn's athletic department but the Huntsville Times still honors their pledge of anonymity to the sources even though they now know the information was a deliberate lie. The reward, Auburn provided the Huntsville Times with a copy of the president's statement a day before the president's press conference, everyone else had to wait until the press conference to get their copy. Also, many people seem to have difficulty understanding that I had different reasons for taking the problem to the provost over a year ago and finally agreeing to talk to the New York Times this summer. One reason I talked to the Times was the provost did nothing about it. But then, what should anyone care about what I have to say about it, I've been told "I SUCK ELEPHANT TURDS". This only makes sense if you know that an elephant is the University of Alabama mascot. Pecan Jim On Aug 24, 2006, at 8:35 PM, Maryann & Dave Schellenberg wrote: <Snip>
Hi Daniel, Your understanding is your business. Think whatever you like. I believe Jim has the highest regard for ethics and credibility, and the position at Auburn to raise the appropriate question. Certainly you have contacts at Auburn who have given you evidence that contradicts what you know from Jim. I had thought your basis was the quotes in the papers. I trust you. It's the newswriters who do most of the spinning in my experience. Brett On 8/24/06, Daniel Newton wrote: <Snip> -- Cheers, Brett
Integrity is at times, to say the least, painful. It takes an indiviual with strength of character to remain steadfast; it is not for the weak. My hat's off to you, Jim. Respectfully, Eddie On 8/24/06, jim gundlach wrote: <Snip>
Jim, Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the clarification on the Hunstville Paper, as I am not from the area, I was unaware of any allegiances papers held to a particular University. I will ask, however, do you challenge the quotes I provided below that different newspapers attributed to you? If not, were they taken wholly out of context, particularly the last two. The information about the Provost was also not communicated in any of the articles I remember reading, that is a very interesting and important piece of information that changes some things. I would like to know, did you originally intend for this piece to center around athletics or did the writer of the original article (Thamel I believe) decide to take that direction? In all honesty I did not intend to attack you in any way, I was simply summarizing the information that was available to me, and the conclusions I drew. I appreciate the clarification on the subject.
Jim, not only do you have to respond to the Provost, you MUST prove your case here. I CHALLENGE YOU... Careful Daniel, you might fall off your ivory tower.... On 8/24/06, Daniel Newton wrote: <Snip> -- Cheers, Brett
Brett, I have no idea what you are talking about. I asked Jim a question, he can answer it if he wishes. I did not address any questions toward you, and do not see any reason for you to question me. Jim either was a stand up guy and was attempting to right a legitimate wrong (the number of directed reading classes), or has a personal beef with Prof. Peete, decided to take it into the pubic arena and decided that athletes would be a good hook. I am simply attempting to learn his true intentions. Therefore, if you would kindly keep any witty comments to yourself, I do not appreciate them from a member of the gallery. Thanks, Daniel
Daniel, you're arrogance was to come onto this list and raise questions for everyone. You certainly could have raised questions directly to Jim privately. But you didn't. Your words are disingenuous (can't be trusted). Your actions speak very loudly. Personally, I find such personal attacks offensive, and contrary to the spirit of this list. Jim has earned respect at the university. He has earned respect in writing regarding water and coffee. He has earned respect by helping many on list. He has earned respect in every regard, except for the snippet quotes you found on the Internet. Jim's explanation should have been enough to answer that. But it's not enough for you... Watch that fall, Brett On 8/24/06, Daniel Newton wrote: <Snip> -- Cheers, Brett
Whatever the motive is, the real point is... is he spewing bullshit or the truth. Who cares WHAT the motives of anything are if the core of what is coming out... is the truth.... Now to some, the truth is not the truth if it does not fit into their perfect little cosym of why the truth was told. To others, the truth is the truth, no matter what the reasons for bringing it out. From what I have seen, and I will admit I am not following this story much, he has told his story and is steadfast on it, he aint pulling a Kerry and flip flopping every 5 minutes depending on who is asking what.... That right there shows some integrety in my opinion. Given he isn't playing games like.. umm err.. can you define 'IS' for me??? shows at least to me, he isn't trying the spindoctor game either. Maybe he IS pissed at a colleague, maybe not, that does not make a difference one bit if what he is claiming is indeed a fact.. I may have missed something here but well.. he doesn't have to prove a damned thing to any of us on this list.. Who the ***k are we to demand he gives us extra special treatment or 'access' to the 'knowledge' as we pretend to pervceive it. From what I have seen over the last several years, anything you read in a paper tends to be 90% spin BS anyways, so anyone who is stupid enough to believe what they see on or in the news deserves their retard sign. oh and on the witty comments, deal with it, learn how to use your ignore button if you can't handle someone disagreeing with your esteemed opinion. Given this is an open list, anything you post can and most often will be addressed by others... that's the nature of a mailing list.. or didn't your AOL manual teach you that? aaron
I assume I have the last word on this important topic, given that I think so well of myself. ***** Professor Green did it in the Library, with a Candle Stick. **** Off to brew a cup, Tom in GA
Brett, I appreciate the definition of that large and difficult word you used there. I will draw your attention to my previous posts as evidence. If you were to read the series of messages I have submitted, I was in no way condescending or arrogant up until your comment regarding my fall from the ivory tower. I am not sure what I have said rubbed you the wrong way. I understand Jim has earned the respect of all on this list where all share similar interests. I do believe that if one is going to make such egregious claims about a University and its athletic program that he is also required to answer questions. I am not one to blindly believe a person who makes such comments. The motives and content of the story must be questioned, and this list provided me with an excellent opportunity to question the source of the news. I simply cannot take the word of a person who I do not personally know as truth. I hope some learned their lesson from Dan Rather and CBS during the election. He had earned the respect of the nation, were we to blindly take his word as the gospel? Certainly not, and I cannot do that here. If he does not wish to respond then the topic will die, simple as that. I do not intend to carry on a conversation with someone who feels the need to personally attack me and call my words disingenuous, I simply await a response from Jim if he feels so inclined. Daniel
Daniel, You've posted but one coffee related entry to the list - asking for an opinion on Monsooned Malabar. You've been challenging Jim's side of the story to this list for over a month. You are smart enough to lift Jim's email out of the list from dozens of posts, and ask him directly. Instead you float all your queries to the list. You don't blindly accept Jim's integrity. You seem to accept the newswriters' integrity. Feel free to be angry at me, I still find your actions on this list to be abrasive toward Jim, and your demand that he reply "if he wish" as arrogant. I may be the only one that feels this way. I trust Jim much more than the journalists, I have stated before. But Jim's actions and words are between him and whoever - I don't expect him to answer to me. Neither do I expect you to answer to me. Feel free to keep up the barrage toward Jim on list. Dress it up all you like, that makes it somewhat friendlier. Brett On 8/24/06, Daniel Newton wrote: <Snip> -- Cheers, Brett
Brett and Aaron make good points, Daniel. The impression you have provided to this list (to me anyway...) is that your only interest in participating here revolves around playing the self-appointed Grand Inquisitor. Since I joined this list in April, you have made precisely one (1) post concerning something other than Jim's story. Because I will not presume to expect a public answer to the following question (as you persist in doing to Jim), feel free to send a reply offlist (or not). Here comes the question: Other than publicly hassling Jim, what exactly is your motivation for participating in this list? I would imagine that Jim (like many of us) considers, or maybe used to consider, this list as a welcome escape from some of life's harsher realities. Ya know, a nice place to visit... Anyway, it's going to be more C+ Mexico Oaxaca Finca El Olivo for me in the morning. Lots of character in that brew! TO in VA Also, I place limited value on quotes taken out of context...no better than soundbites. Watch the punctuation carefully and note where the quotation marks end and begin. On 8/24/06, Brett Mason wrote: <Snip>
On 8/24/06, Brett Mason wrote: <Snip> There have been very few times in my life that I have had first hand knowledge of something that appeared in the newspaper, but the newspapers have always had major factual errors in those times. Mostly they were technical or engineering kind of things and perhaps it is unfair to expect a newspaper reporter to get it exactly right if they have no background in that area. OTOH, why would a newspaper assign someone to write stuff up on a technical question who has no background in it? Safe Journeys and Sweet Music Justin Marquez (Snyder, TX)
"Therefore, if you would kindly keep any witty comments to yourself, I do not appreciate them from a member of the gallery. Thanks, Daniel" If you didn't want comments from the gallery, maybe you shouldn't have posted yours here.
Hey Daniel, Your posts are leaving a bad taste in my mouth that threaten to spoil the coffee taste. Not only do we not care to discuss this, we care not to discuss it. === ... this list provided me with an excellent opportunity to question the source ... === NO! This list provides us with an excellent opportunity to pursue coffee related matters and those related to the list owners, Sweet Maria's. Read the bylaws of this list before you post again. Instead of posting this stuff here write an op ed piece for your favorite newspaper. -- MichaelB On 8/24/06, Daniel Newton wrote: <Snip>
On 8/25/06, Tara Kollas wrote: <Snip> Except for Prof. Pecan Jim, aren't all of us here part of the "gallery"? Safe Journeys and Sweet Music Justin Marquez (Snyder, TX)
On 8/24/06, Daniel Newton wrote: <Snip> His story has never changed. Your quotes neither prove nor implicate anything. Furthermore, University's first responsibility is to higher learning. The department head did not uphold his responsibility and deserved to be called on it. Jim gave the university a chance to respond and they did nothing. I really dislike this trend in society where people ad hominem people who are doing the right thing for the right reasons. Football doesn't really matter in this discussion but since it is brought up... College football is a distortion of what started out as a noble concept-- a scholar athlete. Think about that concept at one of these universities next time you drink milk and see if it stays out of your nose. Systems such as those in place at Auburn encourage the development of grotesques that are good for only one thing until they break their hip. Jim did the right thing and should be honored for it. There is no honor in cheating. The football illiterati can go watch the pros. Steve
Ok here is my 2 cents worth... In the Navy we have Core Values HONOR COURAGE COMMITMENT easy to say and remember but they can be very hard to truly live up to. Jim lives up to these, it is evident in his actions and his blowing the whistle and sticking to his guns under what appears to be almost unbearable pressure from the media and from the school. If more of our country would find these values in their daily lives then this never would have happened in the first place. I for one am very proud of him for standing up to his convictions. How many of us have truly been put in this type of situation and can say that we were not afraid to speak up or did you just take the easy road and turn a blind eye to something you knew was wrong... I for one have had my convictions and ethics challenged in the past and doing the right thing was the hardest thing I have ever had to do. Jim- I salute you! Dennis jim gundlach wrote: <Snip>
Tara, thanks so much. ginny ---- Tara Kollas wrote: <Snip>