HomeRoast Digest


Topic: OT - auburn npr story (29 msgs / 1001 lines)
1) From: Tara Kollas
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!

2) From: Brian Kamnetz
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>

3) From: Daniel Newton
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

4) From: Maryann & Dave Schellenberg
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>

5) From: Daniel Newton
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.

6) From: Maryann & Dave Schellenberg
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>

7) From: Spencer Thomas
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

8) From: Brett Mason
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

9) From: Daniel Newton
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.

10) From: Daniel Newton
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

11) From: jim gundlach
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>

12) From: Brett Mason
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

13) From: Eddie Dove
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>

14) From: Daniel Newton
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.

15) From: Brett Mason
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

16) From: Daniel Newton
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

17) From: Brett Mason
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

18) From: Aaron
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

19) From: Tom Bellhouse
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

20) From: Daniel Newton
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

21) From: Brett Mason
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

22) From: Tom Ogren
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>

23) From: Justin Marquez
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)

24) From: Tara Kollas
"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.

25) From: Michael Boshes
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>

26) From: Justin Marquez
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)

27) From: Steve Hay
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

28) From: Dennis & Marjorie True
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>

29) From:
Tara,  thanks so much.
ginny
---- Tara Kollas  wrote: 
<Snip>


HomeRoast Digest