I will not be posting on this website again.”
- Libel – a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation.
We welcome anyone to point out a single false statement in the article the person is complaining about. If in fact there is one we will happily provide a correction.
- Introducing a frivolous lawsuit that is ten years old is clearly intended to malign
If in fact the suit was frivolous then the Judge would have not allowed parts of it to move forward. In fact, a close review outlines that the Title VII and ADA matters were dismissed on Kartje, but not on the board. The reason they were dismissed on Kartje is because The Seventh Circuit has held that, under Title VII, supervisors are not liable as employers under the definition of the act. (Huebschen v. Department of Health and Social Services, 716 F.2d 1167, 1171 (7th Cir.1983). Therefore, the claims under Title VII and the ADA in regard to Dr. Kartje are dismissed. The Board is not being sued in its individual capacity. Rather, the Board is being sued properly as the governing body of the College and the employer of Easton. Therefore, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the claims arising under Title VII and the ADA is denied. If it was frivolous, why was their motion to dismiss denied?
- If the authors had checked their facts, they would know that Ms. Easton is an African-American lesbian and a member of multiple protected classes.
Wow! For a person who is going to question facts maybe we should point out that if they had fact checked their facts, she would know that Ms. Easton is an African-American and Puerto Rican. Regardless, I fail to see what difference it makes that the person was a lesbian.
Can anyone explain to me what difference it makes what race and sexual orientation a person has? How on earth would publishing that information change the content of the article?
- the suit was not taken further speaks volumes to its lack of validity
We were very clear regarding the case being dismissed. We provided the exact court language and we also provided evidence that the person making the allegation was apparently abandoned by their attorney, so can we truly cite “validity” as the sole reason it was dismissed?
Let’s not forget our whole point in the article which was this, as stated, “Regardless of the court action outcome, according to the COD All Employee Information (7/9/2015) guide, “The Vice President of Academic Affairs is the educational leader of the College. This position is responsible for the development and implementation of policies, programs and services that reflect the College mission.” ”
- I believe that this post needs to be removed and a retraction made.
We never remove posts, however, in the event facts are presented supporting a false statement was made, we will be happy to provide a correction.
- With regard to SLEA, Schiff Hardin LLP has paperwork in hand indicating my understanding that faculty were involved in the review of the learning objectives and that I had consulted ICCB prior to making the decision
Assuming this is in fact Dr. Kartje making this statement, yes, her understanding is they were involved, however, there are no facts that point to that. In fact, faculty is claiming they were not involved so regardless of the “understanding”, we stand by our reporting which made it very clear. “Regrettably, the one person entrusted with strengthening the college’s academic vision is the same person who has shirked responsibility for the latest SLEA credit debacle remains unaccountable. Even the HLC found that Vice President for Academic Affairs, Jean Kartje, failed to check if faculty were involved in a process used to ‘justify’ the increase in academic credits to SLEA cadets. She simply indicated that, “she thought the faculty were involved since the Associate Dean of Behavioral Sciences brought it to her for approval.” (See page 42 of the HLC report)”
- I made the best decision I could based on the facts at hand.
And it would be to much to ask to validate those facts at hand before moving forward? A decision was made based on the facts at hand and they failed to validate those facts. As reported, “Even the HLC found that Vice President for Academic Affairs, Jean Kartje, failed to check if faculty were involved in a process used to ‘justify’ the increase in academic credits to SLEA cadets.”
- It was not made to for nefarious ends, but to help our students succeed.
At no time did we state it was for nefarious ends, however, in light of the US Department of Education investigation taking place we will let them make that determination.
- In hindsight, maybe I should have asked again about faculty involved.
Please let this comment truly be from Dr. Kartje. That would appear to be the first public acknowledgement of what should have been done. Now that we have that out of the way, how is it that an Administrator at this level didn’t know to do that in the first place?
- The College has not received any funding from the State and the number of students/credits involved did not change the College’s statistics significantly.
Just when we think we are making progress, excuses and justification gets thrown out there in what appears to be an attempt to minimize the wrong. It’s as if she is saying since there was not a statistical significance it’s no big deal. Is that the message we really want to teach our students?
- At this point, the decision has been reversed and participants in SLEA are not receiving any credit for their work.
Of course it has been stopped. It’s at the forefront of the HLC investigation and it’s clear it was wrong. We would not expect anything else.
- I will not be posting on this website again
Please know we welcome input from those being exposed as it provides perspectives for the readers, as well as more stuff for us to write about. We thank you for you comment and please know they are always welcome.
As a note of encouragement, it might be best if yet another shovel is removed from the hands of COD Administrators as the hole is only getting deeper.
Below are exhibits from the referenced case. Although not all inclusive, many are depositions of the Plaintiff. It is interesting reading to say the least.
- Exhibit 2 part 1
- Exhibit 2 part 1a
- Exhibit 2 part 2
- Exhibit 2 part 3
- Exhibit 2 part 4
- Exhibit 2 part 5
- Exhibit 3 part 1
- Exhibit 3 part 2
- Exhibit 3 part 3
- Exhibit 3 part 4
- Exhibit 3 part 5
- Exhibit 4
- Exhibit 5
- Exhibit 6
- Exhibit 7