The Buchanan File
So the University didn’t have such a good case for dismissing Paul after all and it cost them sixty odd thousand which is a pretty cheap price for a career I’d hazard. Although they had to cough up, the University’s position is that because Paul spoke publicly of their lack of a case he couldn’t come back – this is an ethical position that Paul has to fight through an appeal – the University are saying it’s because he spoke out about their poor treatment of him he can’t work there again – for institutions built on freedom of speech this position is untenable – if one can not be critical on a campus, including being critical of that campus (especially when their case is as poor as this one) where can one be critical?
posted by Bomber @ 7:09 pm
2 comments
2 Comments:
Yeah man spot on. I think Paul spoke publically because he felt (justifiably in my view) that he was getting slammed so had the right to defend himself. He had been wronged, as was proven when the authority ruled it was an unjustified dismissal.
Look if you actually read the decision it is incredible. 'The' email was wrong sure, but it did not meet the threshold required for serious misconduct, only misconduct. He had NO formal warnings whatsoever, and the decsion to sack him (as most said at the time) was a gross over-reaction. There was NO accusation or finding that he was a racist, which was pleasing.
Of course Paul should get his job back, of that there is no question in my mind.
TRESPASS NOTICE BY AUSA EXPIRES IN MAY!
NO INCREASE IN LIVING COSTS AS PROMISED BY PETE HODGSON!
JUST ALL THE SMART CUNTS WHO GET THEIR ALLOWANCES FOR FREE?
Post a Comment
<< Home