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
