Life of Pride
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Thanks to the recent email from Dr. Farris to the student body, I now feel at liberty to discuss some facts that I knew already but had been asked not to communicate.
Fact: A parent raised a legitimate question about the "lifeboat example" that Dr. R. used in class.
Fact: When a parent raises a legitimate question, it is the job of the President of the college to find out if it is true.
Fact: Dr. R. apparently took umbrage at even being asked, leaked the fact that he was being questioned (witness: the "save Dr. Root" campaign), and did not answer the accusations.
Other facts that I have gleaned through knowledge of people and through questioning --
Fact: Some professors have felt for some time that their academic freedom was in peril.
Fact: I myself have felt for the last four years that Dr. F. does not understand the liberal arts side of the college as much as he does the government side.
This is a touchy combination of personalities and events, to say the least. When I talked to Dr. F. on the phone during the first week of April, I told him that I thought he was the only one who could fix things. He sighed and said, "If you figure out how, please tell me! I have asked counsel at every point, and I don't see where I've gone wrong." I believe he was sincere. I advised him later via email that it seemed to me that the professors were scared of him, and that if he really wanted to fix matters, he should go to each one individually, by himself, and volunteer just to listen as they spoke. He replied, and I quote, "Thank you for your comments." In the phone conversation, he told me that he was scheduled to speak with each man who was resigning in the company of each one's pastor. Still, it seemed to me that nobody had talked directly to each other first, which is supposed to be the first step of reconciliation.
This is how I interpret events:
(A) Professors feel repressed, and they feel for whatever reason that Dr. F. just cannot understand their position. I must admit that I have felt this way before with Dr. F. He has very good intentions, but he likes to argue like a lawyer, dodging through loopholes. I think loopholes are cheating, if they only "win" an argument without arriving at truth. :)
(B) Professors make an agreement to be an the lookout for academic repression in the future. Dr. F. does not suspect this in the slightest.
(C) Parent complains about Dr. R., and Dr. F. passes on the concerns, as is his job. Dr. R. publishes an article about Augustine that says among other things (or so I heard from Dr. F.) that marriage is a "political union." Dr. F. adds some of these concerns to the still-unanswered list.
(D) Vigilant professors instantly see this as an occurrence of the very repression they feared. Dr. F. still doesn't know that they think it is anything larger than what it is. He is confused and angered when they respond as if he is a tyrant when he is just (in this instance at least) doing his job.
(E) All tempers flare. Two profs publish an article about general and special revelation that they must have known would be controversial. Administration responds just as expected, warily unsure what is happening, but no longer expecting professors to respond professionally.
(F) Both sides are right, so far as they go. Dr. F. does not recognize the existence of any wrong opinions he has held in the past, because nobody has told him that they relate to the current situation. Professors see the current situation only as further proof of perceived abuse.
The reason I understand this is that I find it strikingly similar to the disagreement between history majors and Dr. Sa. last year. We all were feeling exceedingly misused, and it felt like it was impossible to explain anything to her. So Beth Branscome started a petition, which we sent above Dr. Sa.'s head to Dr. B. and Dr. F. Imagine my embarrassment in our eventual meeting with Dr. B. and Dr. Sa. when Dr. B. asked us who had actually talked to Dr. Sa. first and only Beth and I raised our hands! I knew then for sure that we had done Dr. Sa. wrong as a group by not talking to her first. And let me add that I have had some wonderful discussions with Dr. Sa. since, and I utterly respect and like her as a teacher and a school authority.
This all is what I meant about a month ago when I posted that the whole mess was a deeply rooted misunderstanding. Anyone who is still reading this has no idea how uncomfortable it is to know information from either direction that one is not allowed to tell the other party. Keep praying, my friends.
Fact: A parent raised a legitimate question about the "lifeboat example" that Dr. R. used in class.
Fact: When a parent raises a legitimate question, it is the job of the President of the college to find out if it is true.
Fact: Dr. R. apparently took umbrage at even being asked, leaked the fact that he was being questioned (witness: the "save Dr. Root" campaign), and did not answer the accusations.
Other facts that I have gleaned through knowledge of people and through questioning --
Fact: Some professors have felt for some time that their academic freedom was in peril.
Fact: I myself have felt for the last four years that Dr. F. does not understand the liberal arts side of the college as much as he does the government side.
This is a touchy combination of personalities and events, to say the least. When I talked to Dr. F. on the phone during the first week of April, I told him that I thought he was the only one who could fix things. He sighed and said, "If you figure out how, please tell me! I have asked counsel at every point, and I don't see where I've gone wrong." I believe he was sincere. I advised him later via email that it seemed to me that the professors were scared of him, and that if he really wanted to fix matters, he should go to each one individually, by himself, and volunteer just to listen as they spoke. He replied, and I quote, "Thank you for your comments." In the phone conversation, he told me that he was scheduled to speak with each man who was resigning in the company of each one's pastor. Still, it seemed to me that nobody had talked directly to each other first, which is supposed to be the first step of reconciliation.
This is how I interpret events:
(A) Professors feel repressed, and they feel for whatever reason that Dr. F. just cannot understand their position. I must admit that I have felt this way before with Dr. F. He has very good intentions, but he likes to argue like a lawyer, dodging through loopholes. I think loopholes are cheating, if they only "win" an argument without arriving at truth. :)
(B) Professors make an agreement to be an the lookout for academic repression in the future. Dr. F. does not suspect this in the slightest.
(C) Parent complains about Dr. R., and Dr. F. passes on the concerns, as is his job. Dr. R. publishes an article about Augustine that says among other things (or so I heard from Dr. F.) that marriage is a "political union." Dr. F. adds some of these concerns to the still-unanswered list.
(D) Vigilant professors instantly see this as an occurrence of the very repression they feared. Dr. F. still doesn't know that they think it is anything larger than what it is. He is confused and angered when they respond as if he is a tyrant when he is just (in this instance at least) doing his job.
(E) All tempers flare. Two profs publish an article about general and special revelation that they must have known would be controversial. Administration responds just as expected, warily unsure what is happening, but no longer expecting professors to respond professionally.
(F) Both sides are right, so far as they go. Dr. F. does not recognize the existence of any wrong opinions he has held in the past, because nobody has told him that they relate to the current situation. Professors see the current situation only as further proof of perceived abuse.
The reason I understand this is that I find it strikingly similar to the disagreement between history majors and Dr. Sa. last year. We all were feeling exceedingly misused, and it felt like it was impossible to explain anything to her. So Beth Branscome started a petition, which we sent above Dr. Sa.'s head to Dr. B. and Dr. F. Imagine my embarrassment in our eventual meeting with Dr. B. and Dr. Sa. when Dr. B. asked us who had actually talked to Dr. Sa. first and only Beth and I raised our hands! I knew then for sure that we had done Dr. Sa. wrong as a group by not talking to her first. And let me add that I have had some wonderful discussions with Dr. Sa. since, and I utterly respect and like her as a teacher and a school authority.
This all is what I meant about a month ago when I posted that the whole mess was a deeply rooted misunderstanding. Anyone who is still reading this has no idea how uncomfortable it is to know information from either direction that one is not allowed to tell the other party. Keep praying, my friends.
Comments:
Anyone who is still reading this has no idea how uncomfortable it is to know information from either direction that one is not allowed to tell the other party.
Actually, I think I do, having gone through (er, still going through) a rather similar (albiet perhaps less significant) set of misunderstandings between several very close friends and the leader of a group we are mutually part of. It has at times made me almost physically ill... What is worst of all is when both "sides" have confided in you and explicitly requested that you keep such in confidence from the other side.
Actually, I think I do, having gone through (er, still going through) a rather similar (albiet perhaps less significant) set of misunderstandings between several very close friends and the leader of a group we are mutually part of. It has at times made me almost physically ill... What is worst of all is when both "sides" have confided in you and explicitly requested that you keep such in confidence from the other side.
# posted by 
: 11:49 AM
: 11:49 AM
thanks.. I've wondered about Dr. F's perspective and how it would explain the events discussed the Chronicles of H.E. article
I'm not entirely certain that the question raised by the parent was legitimate.
I also think that PHC places too much weight on parents' concerns.
However, like you, I tend to think that this is rooted in misunderstanding - a huge, ugly, festering misunderstanding, fueled by significant differences of opinion and the apparent reluctance of any party to seek true, Christian reconiciliation.
It makes me sick.
I also think that PHC places too much weight on parents' concerns.
However, like you, I tend to think that this is rooted in misunderstanding - a huge, ugly, festering misunderstanding, fueled by significant differences of opinion and the apparent reluctance of any party to seek true, Christian reconiciliation.
It makes me sick.
Well, as discussed below, the reason it seemed like a legitimate concern to Dr. F. is because the lifeboat example was an extremely touchy, extremely volatile affair for his (and my mom's) generation. He didn't know how Dr. R. had used it. Dr. R. didn't tell him. So in this post, I am doing the best I can to explain how both sides perceived the same event.
You're wrong from your very first "fact": no legitimate question was raised by a parent. I agree with Thomas on this point. (I also agree with him that the school places entirely too much weight on the will and wish of parents.)
You make much of the volatility of the "lifeboat" example. This is misguided. If Farris knew anything about political philosophy--anything at all!--he would know that Dr. Root is a West Coast Straussian. (Indeed, Root studied under Jaffa!) West Coast Straussians believe in natural right, and are among the foremost opponents of "relativism" (including "situational ethics") in the academy today. Any suggestion to contrary is laughable.
In terms of academics, there are two main problems at Patrick Henry. The first is cultural. In America in the twentieth century, conservative Protestant Christians have a poor track record of engaging in high level intellectual inquiry. This is, in part, the legacy of fundamentalism. (See Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.) Patrick Henry and, indeed, all evangelical liberal arts colleges, face this difficulty. The second problem, though, is more specific. It is Farris. For all his strengths, Farris is not the person to be running a Christian college. Leaving aside his poor management style, Farris is neither a deep thinker, nor a close reader. Think back to Bartlett's piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Farris has reservations about St. Augustine--indeed, according to some, Farris has said that St. Augustine is in hell. Graham Walker, though disagreeing with Farris about St. Augustine, praises Farris for having an opinion. It is an asset to the college, Walker says, to have a president who actually reads primary source materials. But I wonder, if we were to give Farris a copy of the Confessions and ask him what he objects to, would he speculate that it may have been edited?
No one disputes the importance of preserving Patrick Henry's explicitly Christian mission. But doing so shouldn't require asinine inquiries into illegitimate complaints. Nor should it require systematically bullying and alienating faculty. The fact that the president of the school is ignorant enough to make such inquiries bodes poorly for the future of Patrick Henry.
Will Farris forsaking the presidency for the chancellorship improve things? Perhaps--I certainly hope so. But I must confess that I'm not optimistic. Never forget, Lycurgus had to leave Sparta.
You make much of the volatility of the "lifeboat" example. This is misguided. If Farris knew anything about political philosophy--anything at all!--he would know that Dr. Root is a West Coast Straussian. (Indeed, Root studied under Jaffa!) West Coast Straussians believe in natural right, and are among the foremost opponents of "relativism" (including "situational ethics") in the academy today. Any suggestion to contrary is laughable.
In terms of academics, there are two main problems at Patrick Henry. The first is cultural. In America in the twentieth century, conservative Protestant Christians have a poor track record of engaging in high level intellectual inquiry. This is, in part, the legacy of fundamentalism. (See Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.) Patrick Henry and, indeed, all evangelical liberal arts colleges, face this difficulty. The second problem, though, is more specific. It is Farris. For all his strengths, Farris is not the person to be running a Christian college. Leaving aside his poor management style, Farris is neither a deep thinker, nor a close reader. Think back to Bartlett's piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Farris has reservations about St. Augustine--indeed, according to some, Farris has said that St. Augustine is in hell. Graham Walker, though disagreeing with Farris about St. Augustine, praises Farris for having an opinion. It is an asset to the college, Walker says, to have a president who actually reads primary source materials. But I wonder, if we were to give Farris a copy of the Confessions and ask him what he objects to, would he speculate that it may have been edited?
No one disputes the importance of preserving Patrick Henry's explicitly Christian mission. But doing so shouldn't require asinine inquiries into illegitimate complaints. Nor should it require systematically bullying and alienating faculty. The fact that the president of the school is ignorant enough to make such inquiries bodes poorly for the future of Patrick Henry.
Will Farris forsaking the presidency for the chancellorship improve things? Perhaps--I certainly hope so. But I must confess that I'm not optimistic. Never forget, Lycurgus had to leave Sparta.
# posted by : 11:41 AM
: 11:41 AM
This post is all about perceptions. The point is not whether Dr. R. was using the lifeboat example in any wrong way, as I am quite sure he was not. The point is what Dr. F. was told exactly, which I don't know. If a parent said just that Dr. R. was "using the lifeboat example in class," for example, without saying how it was used, that would require Dr. F. to check it out. However, from what I understand, Dr. R. didn't respond to tell Dr. F. how it was used. Again, I have tried as best I can to explain why that might be. I asked Dr. R. in an email a while ago and he did not reply, so I am forced to conjecture that it was because he felt academically repressed. Again, I don't think that Dr. F. understood at all why Dr. R. felt that way... And so we have it.
"I myself have felt for the last four years that Dr. F. does not understand the liberal arts side of the college as much as he does the government side."
Okay, yes, but there is more to it than just a difference between the departments of government and classical liberal arts at PHC. Consider: at most colleges the Government major is within the School of Arts and Sciences. It is considered one of the Humanities. Liberal education is for all students, not just the ones formally studying the "liberal arts." The deeper problem here is that Farris has a very specific agenda, and he intends to use the school as a tool to accomplish this agenda. If any of you think I am way out in left field here, just read The Joshua Generation. However, this sort of political/religious agenda is not exactly compatible with a true liberal arts education. Farris wants his "Joshua Generation" to be educated so they can get into power. But he doesn't want their education to actually change them, to teach them to think for themselves, to set them free by showing them how to search for truth. He wants them to agree with HIM. I have to agree with David here: "Farris is neither a deep thinker, nor a close reader." He is unfit to be the president of an honestly liberal arts college. However, the professors came in expecting to be able to teach the liberal arts. When they discovered instead that they were supposed to teach and say and do only what Farris agreed with, well, there was conflict. And I can't agree with you that "both sides are right, so far as they go," because it is WRONG to advertise something as a liberal arts college when you actually intend it to be something else. That is called deception, and it has hurt countless numbers of students and parents and employees and people in the community, not to mention the 6 departing professors.
To emphasize: this is bigger than PHC and the old Gov/CLA divide. This controversy calls into question the entire possibility of an evangelical liberal arts education.
"Parent complains about Dr. R., and Dr. F. passes on the concerns, as is his job. Dr. R. publishes an article about Augustine that says among other things (or so I heard from Dr. F.) that marriage is a "political union." Dr. F. adds some of these concerns to the still-unanswered list."
Okay, one thing that has not been brought up here is that Root was already on Farris's radar for having criticized Dean Wilson the semester before. So it is reasonable to conclude that there was a little more motivation on Farris' side than just "I'm doing my job." And it is a FACT that he did more than "pass on the concerns," he yanked Root's contract. Now that's a step in the direction towards dialogue! Seriously, is ANYONE still under the impression that if Root had answered those questions, he would have a job today? Because if you are, you have not been paying attention very closely. And marriage is a political union. Political in the Aristotelian sense. You're a Greek scholar, think about it.
"Dr. F. does not recognize the existence of any wrong opinions he has held in the past, because nobody has told him that they relate to the current situation."
The fact that he has not figured this out already is no excuse for his behavior. Yes, he is an egomaniac with a selective memory. But that's hardly exculpatory.
"Anyone who is still reading this has no idea how uncomfortable it is to know information from either direction that one is not allowed to tell the other party."
Oh, please. Don't flatter yourself. Nothing you've said is news to me, and that probably goes for a lot of other people as well.
Okay, yes, but there is more to it than just a difference between the departments of government and classical liberal arts at PHC. Consider: at most colleges the Government major is within the School of Arts and Sciences. It is considered one of the Humanities. Liberal education is for all students, not just the ones formally studying the "liberal arts." The deeper problem here is that Farris has a very specific agenda, and he intends to use the school as a tool to accomplish this agenda. If any of you think I am way out in left field here, just read The Joshua Generation. However, this sort of political/religious agenda is not exactly compatible with a true liberal arts education. Farris wants his "Joshua Generation" to be educated so they can get into power. But he doesn't want their education to actually change them, to teach them to think for themselves, to set them free by showing them how to search for truth. He wants them to agree with HIM. I have to agree with David here: "Farris is neither a deep thinker, nor a close reader." He is unfit to be the president of an honestly liberal arts college. However, the professors came in expecting to be able to teach the liberal arts. When they discovered instead that they were supposed to teach and say and do only what Farris agreed with, well, there was conflict. And I can't agree with you that "both sides are right, so far as they go," because it is WRONG to advertise something as a liberal arts college when you actually intend it to be something else. That is called deception, and it has hurt countless numbers of students and parents and employees and people in the community, not to mention the 6 departing professors.
To emphasize: this is bigger than PHC and the old Gov/CLA divide. This controversy calls into question the entire possibility of an evangelical liberal arts education.
"Parent complains about Dr. R., and Dr. F. passes on the concerns, as is his job. Dr. R. publishes an article about Augustine that says among other things (or so I heard from Dr. F.) that marriage is a "political union." Dr. F. adds some of these concerns to the still-unanswered list."
Okay, one thing that has not been brought up here is that Root was already on Farris's radar for having criticized Dean Wilson the semester before. So it is reasonable to conclude that there was a little more motivation on Farris' side than just "I'm doing my job." And it is a FACT that he did more than "pass on the concerns," he yanked Root's contract. Now that's a step in the direction towards dialogue! Seriously, is ANYONE still under the impression that if Root had answered those questions, he would have a job today? Because if you are, you have not been paying attention very closely. And marriage is a political union. Political in the Aristotelian sense. You're a Greek scholar, think about it.
"Dr. F. does not recognize the existence of any wrong opinions he has held in the past, because nobody has told him that they relate to the current situation."
The fact that he has not figured this out already is no excuse for his behavior. Yes, he is an egomaniac with a selective memory. But that's hardly exculpatory.
"Anyone who is still reading this has no idea how uncomfortable it is to know information from either direction that one is not allowed to tell the other party."
Oh, please. Don't flatter yourself. Nothing you've said is news to me, and that probably goes for a lot of other people as well.
# posted by : 1:27 PM
: 1:27 PM
Anonymous, if you are who I think you are, unless you talked to Dr. F. personally since our email discussions, you probably don't know the Dr. F. side as well as I do. That's all I meant by the last comment - that I had heard things from both sides that made sense, but that I wasn't allowed to ask the other side directly about anything.
As for Dr. R., everyone keeps talking about "innocent until proven guilty." I agree; I personally don't think he did anything wrong. But on the other hand, I also don't think it is appropriate to say that Dr. F. would inevitably have fired him no matter what. My understanding is that his contract was suspended, not revoked. If he had answered the questions and then been persecuted, he would indeed need "saving." There would be no argument about that. As it is, obviously, argument ensues. :P
I wish everyone would stop calling Dr. F. names. How can we forget so quickly that one major reason many of us were able to receive the K-12 educations we did is because of the work of HSLDA (and others, naturally)? Sure he has made mistakes, but I wouldn't want to call him an "egomaniac."
I think you are right about the agenda, but I should think that would also come as no surprise to anyone. Did we not come to PHC in order to "impact the culture for Christ?" We have all together been trying to work out what that means for the last six years. A lot of student conflict has centered around this very point, I think, although students haven't discussed it directly. That is, in fact, why I ran for student body president last year - to get people talking. :) What does it mean to impact the culture? How does one do that? I, of course, believe like you that it is essential to grow as a person and a Christian before one does any "impacting" at all. But a great many students a year ago believed that they already were doing their "impacting" by participating in campaigns, etc. Of course, yes. But they were thinking far too small. I have had so many conversations in which I tried to convince students (usually journalism students - I'm not sure why) that philosophy was actually important.
This is one reason why I believe this conflict has been so helpful for the student body. We are now talking about the purpose of the college all together. I just don't want us to make Dr. Farris the scapegoat, a common enemy to rally against. You know why? 'Cause he's not. We have much bigger and badder things to worry about than him.
Also, let me reiterate that somehow, despite Dr. F.'s tyrannical rule, we have succeeded over the past years in reading much more philosophy and literature of all sorts in the primary text than students at almost any other college are able to do. I know this because I have met some of the purported "best and brightest" of other students at Intercollegiate Studies Institute conferences.
I seriously appreciate these comments on my blog, however. These are the things I want to discuss.
As for Dr. R., everyone keeps talking about "innocent until proven guilty." I agree; I personally don't think he did anything wrong. But on the other hand, I also don't think it is appropriate to say that Dr. F. would inevitably have fired him no matter what. My understanding is that his contract was suspended, not revoked. If he had answered the questions and then been persecuted, he would indeed need "saving." There would be no argument about that. As it is, obviously, argument ensues. :P
I wish everyone would stop calling Dr. F. names. How can we forget so quickly that one major reason many of us were able to receive the K-12 educations we did is because of the work of HSLDA (and others, naturally)? Sure he has made mistakes, but I wouldn't want to call him an "egomaniac."
I think you are right about the agenda, but I should think that would also come as no surprise to anyone. Did we not come to PHC in order to "impact the culture for Christ?" We have all together been trying to work out what that means for the last six years. A lot of student conflict has centered around this very point, I think, although students haven't discussed it directly. That is, in fact, why I ran for student body president last year - to get people talking. :) What does it mean to impact the culture? How does one do that? I, of course, believe like you that it is essential to grow as a person and a Christian before one does any "impacting" at all. But a great many students a year ago believed that they already were doing their "impacting" by participating in campaigns, etc. Of course, yes. But they were thinking far too small. I have had so many conversations in which I tried to convince students (usually journalism students - I'm not sure why) that philosophy was actually important.
This is one reason why I believe this conflict has been so helpful for the student body. We are now talking about the purpose of the college all together. I just don't want us to make Dr. Farris the scapegoat, a common enemy to rally against. You know why? 'Cause he's not. We have much bigger and badder things to worry about than him.
Also, let me reiterate that somehow, despite Dr. F.'s tyrannical rule, we have succeeded over the past years in reading much more philosophy and literature of all sorts in the primary text than students at almost any other college are able to do. I know this because I have met some of the purported "best and brightest" of other students at Intercollegiate Studies Institute conferences.
I seriously appreciate these comments on my blog, however. These are the things I want to discuss.
Sarah, one thing that I appreciate about you is your genuine interest in dialogue. This sets you apart from, say, Jeremiah "give me hamburgers" Lorrig. I'm a little disappointed, though, in your failure (thus far) to address the substance of my arguments. For instance, do you think that Farris is either a deep thinker or a close reader? If so, why? If not, wouldn't you agree with me that it is highly problematic for him to be "questioning" (read: accusing) Dr. Root or responding ex cathedra via his surrogate Bouchoc to Drs. Culberson & Noe?
I understand the impulse to want to call this all a big misunderstanding, and that such an impulse requires blaming both sides. Moreover, I recognize that we all have much invested in Patrick Henry. But let us recognize that our investment isn't in the mere existence of the college--no, our investment is also in the substance of the college. We have a responsibility to give praise and blame to whom praise and blame are due. The professors, like us all, have feet of clay. But any mistakes they may have made are minuscule in comparison to the wrong perpetrated by the Farris. At stake in this controversy is the very soul of Patrick Henry College. I am sorry to say this, but Patrick Henry looks poised to descend into the intellectual (and spiritual) hell that Bob Jones University and Pensacola Christian College already occupy.
We must do everything we can to stop the intellectual self-ghettoization already underway. And if we are to have any hope of doing that, we must stop pussyfooting around and censuring both sides. Take a stand.
I understand the impulse to want to call this all a big misunderstanding, and that such an impulse requires blaming both sides. Moreover, I recognize that we all have much invested in Patrick Henry. But let us recognize that our investment isn't in the mere existence of the college--no, our investment is also in the substance of the college. We have a responsibility to give praise and blame to whom praise and blame are due. The professors, like us all, have feet of clay. But any mistakes they may have made are minuscule in comparison to the wrong perpetrated by the Farris. At stake in this controversy is the very soul of Patrick Henry College. I am sorry to say this, but Patrick Henry looks poised to descend into the intellectual (and spiritual) hell that Bob Jones University and Pensacola Christian College already occupy.
We must do everything we can to stop the intellectual self-ghettoization already underway. And if we are to have any hope of doing that, we must stop pussyfooting around and censuring both sides. Take a stand.
# posted by : 6:18 PM
: 6:18 PM
Which David are you, by the way? I have been wondering.
"Take a stand," you say. All right, I'll tell you... I consider Dr. F. a friend. As such, I see many character flaws plainly, but I refuse to discuss them publicly - just as I refuse to discuss character flaws in anyone else. I will critique actions and words. And there are things to be censured in the actions of both sides.
Should Dr. F. lead a college? He is a superb delegator. When he picks people for a job and lets them do it, things work out great. I think his main problem has been in temporarily forgetting to delegate.
I don't think it was wrong to question Dr. R. about the lifeboat example, so far as I know from what I've heard. There is a big difference between questioning and accusing. If I think cookies are missing from the tray, I will ask my younger siblings if they have taken any. If they answer, "No!" right away, I believe them.
However, if they seem taken aback and don't answer, it makes me suspicious. That is human nature.
"Take a stand," you say. All right, I'll tell you... I consider Dr. F. a friend. As such, I see many character flaws plainly, but I refuse to discuss them publicly - just as I refuse to discuss character flaws in anyone else. I will critique actions and words. And there are things to be censured in the actions of both sides.
Should Dr. F. lead a college? He is a superb delegator. When he picks people for a job and lets them do it, things work out great. I think his main problem has been in temporarily forgetting to delegate.
I don't think it was wrong to question Dr. R. about the lifeboat example, so far as I know from what I've heard. There is a big difference between questioning and accusing. If I think cookies are missing from the tray, I will ask my younger siblings if they have taken any. If they answer, "No!" right away, I believe them.
However, if they seem taken aback and don't answer, it makes me suspicious. That is human nature.
Sarah,
I am not who you think I am. I don't know who that person is, but it is not me.
I'm sorry if I was inflamatory earlier, this has become an extremely emotional subject for me (and others I am sure). Dr. Farris recent letter did nothing to help - in fact, I think he is lying. It would not be the first time. And that is not name-calling, it's the truth.
I will be back later to respond more.
I am not who you think I am. I don't know who that person is, but it is not me.
I'm sorry if I was inflamatory earlier, this has become an extremely emotional subject for me (and others I am sure). Dr. Farris recent letter did nothing to help - in fact, I think he is lying. It would not be the first time. And that is not name-calling, it's the truth.
I will be back later to respond more.
# posted by : 7:28 PM
: 7:28 PM
Here is another piece of the puzzle. Below is the piece that Dr. Root published in the PHC student magazine shortly before his contract was suspended.
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/dialogue/root.html
Post a Comment
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/dialogue/root.html
# posted by : 8:28 PM
: 8:28 PM