Thursday, April 20, 2006

Women who make the world worse?

How about one who seems to relish fanning the flames at Ave Maria School of Law?

Here is a sampling of Miss O'Beirne's responses to questions from today's meeting with students (note: these are not exact quotes, but accurately reflect what she said, which will be proven once we receive a copy of the audio recording that was made of the meeting):

Concerning the resignation of Falvey as dean: "I don't see that as much of a loss."

In response to a question about provisional accreditation: "I don't know the meaning of that term."

Regarding the votes of no confidence in the Dean by the students, faculty, and alumni board and their supporting allegations: "They did not dignify a response."

Concerning the faculty's resolution and statements in support against the Dean: "I was very disappointed in the non-professional manner of it, especially coming from lawyers".

Kate O'Beirne can be reached at author@nationalreview.com
(specify that your message is for her in the subject line)

33 Comments:

At 7:52 PM, Blogger informationoverload said...

"I don't see that as much of a loss" simply means that Professor Falvey will still be teaching, but he no longer chooses to be a part of the administration. We keep Falvey and bring in another person too.

Talk about fanning the flames at Ave Maria... you are doing a good job of it!

 
At 9:31 PM, Blogger RealityCheck said...

My perception is that the majority of the questions, arguments and accusations by students are irrational and those that are constructive have to do with information not yet available, namely, whether moving to Florida is in the best interest of the law school based upon the feasibility study. Words like “trust” and “dialogue” are used liberally but are more the product of emotion and despair rather than genuine reason. That is, they are not “reasoned” in the “logical” sense of the term. The concerns are however real, they have a source, and that source is neither the lack of logic employed nor mistrust of this or that person. Instead it is much more fundamental and clarity could be found in analogizing not to a large corporation but to an ecclesial institution. Ave Maria is of course not a branch of the Roman Catholic Church but it has many similar characteristics. Those characteristics have to do with the perception of the institution by its members. And one of the perspectives that is uppermost is the notion of the community as the Body of Christ. This is not simply a metaphor but is recognition of the inseparable bond we have as children of God and believers in Jesus Christ. One of the fundamental tenets of that belief is the nature of Jesus Christ as truly God and truly man. It is this corporal component, which is most evident in the community itself: its inner relationships, those with non-members and also those with the good of the earth over which we are stewards.

A church institution is made up of its members, but it also has a tangible geographical reality that is an integral part of its identity. From the earliest days of the Church “place” was of utmost importance. The position of St. Peter’s Basilica is no coincidence—it is where it is because it is where he was. He didn’t pass by— his body was buried there. In some sense he is still there. Jesus Christ is risen but he remains with us. The corporal dimension of the church did not ascend to the Father. It is very much present and not only in the Eucharist.
With all of this in mind, we can look again at many of the objections to everything associated with the running of the law school and perhaps see a little better the source of the angst and why the positions are heart felt if not particularly well argued or supported. The school encompasses many things but “place” is no small part in that calculation.

Furthermore, one senses that if every objection were overcome, many of those opposed would remain opposed. This has a different source no less difficult to quantify. There is a special way in which those involved in AMSOL, at every level, believe that the Will of God is very much the reason they have come to the school or why the school even exists. If one perceives, however, that God’s Will is being thwarted or circumvented, one will look to a source for the deviation. More precisely, if one believes that the school grows and flourishes at God’s Will, and for some reason it is not doing so, it is only reasonable to look to the one whose will is being followed, namely, that of Tom Monaghan. Furthermore, if God’s will is not being followed then evil is at work and it must be at work in the person of the one whose will is being followed. The conclusion is inevitable. Against God’s Will we are being torn away from the place of our founding to the destruction not only of the “place” but of the very community itself. The source of evil that has derailed the community is in the will of Tom Monaghan.

The foundational source, therefore, of the inarticulable tension that many feel and express with irrational or flawed arguments is the fear of the loss of their community—which includes both the spiritual and the corporal—to which they have become a part having invested in the project a part of themselves. This fear is brought on by the perception that the will of one has overshadowed your own will and overcome the Will of God (How many people say “If I had known then what I know now…”).
This is an objection, however, for which there is no relief. No feasibility study, no meetings with board members, no “logical” solution is possible since no one can provide the blueprint to support or refute God’s Will for the direction of the school. It is therefore impossible for an “opponent” to allow for much less come to a conclusion that what is best for the school is a move to Florida. Whatever is offered is immediately rejected: the feasibility study becomes “cover” for the ABA; even if it were legitimate, those producing the study have already come to a conclusion that moving to Florida is best (doesn’t matter that their opinion is irrelevant); and even if they were legitimate and objective, the study itself is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” having been commissioned by the board who are willing idiots.

All parties invested in the school made sacrifices. I suggest that one last sacrifice must be made in the name of the good of the school. Take Monaghan out of the picture and look again at the school. Make the argument for your opponent. Then look at your objections; see what can be answered and what cannot be answered. See what could be answered by the study. Finally, accept the decision of the board and choose to participate or not. Know, however, that that the entire school is not in full agreement with the “opposition.” Know that some may already think moving to be the best idea. Do not, in response, tear down the school in the name of God’s Will and expect to be congratulated for your catholicity or righteousness. There is a right way to proceed and a wrong way. The right way may fail to achieve the intended results, but that does not make wrong way a viable option to achieving God’s Will which to follow is so precious to us all.

 
At 10:19 PM, Blogger informationoverload said...

Very eloquent. Please continue. These blogs need much more of this. Thank you.

 
At 2:25 AM, Blogger Anakin Aquinas said...

Reality Check,

thank you for your participation in this discussion. I was wondering two things.

First you note that not all are in agreement with the opposition. This I know to be true. However, then why not argue for the move on its merits. Why silence all opposition? Unless you are prepared to make the case that there has been no attempt to silence opposition?

2- You note that we should just accept the decision of the board and move on with things. Would you make that claim for those who feel that the Dean and Tom are acting immorally, that those who feel that should just walk away? I am interested on how that applies to the lessons of moral foundations in regards to judgment at nueremberg, where a huge topic of discussion is accepting the decisions of superios which you believe to be immoral. (I'm sure you don;t believe that the dean's actions are immoral, but this is a hypothetical, that i would like you to answer as if you did think that).

I actually have a third question, which relates to the first...

3- Are wel allowed to infer any judgment as to the quality of the decision making on the Board of Governors from the resignation of Judge Ryan?

I hope this doesn;t seem like an attack, I think these are some good questions, that perhaps we can have a civil discussion in regards to, to benefit the community.

AA

 
At 9:52 AM, Blogger L. von Shtupp said...

In response to "reality check"

- AMSOL/AMU/AMC are not the same as "the Church"; their work, and that of their employees and students are no more or less important to the Body of Christ - and are no more or less part of the Bride of Christ, which is "the Church" - than the Catholic students and employees doing their work in state schools, or in the factories, or at home. I've seen Mr. Monaghan talk about book donations to AMU as being donations to "the Church", and find it deplorable. The irony is that, for all of Monaghan's talk about submission to the authority of the Chruch, his own church, the AMU Oratory, refuses to come under the authority of the local representation of the Magisterium, which is the Diocese of Venice.

- Your posts make the grossly incorrect assumption that it is the faculty/students/alumni of AMSoL that "tear down the school in the name of God's Will". Monaghan is the source of this instability, and has shown a stubborn refusal to even entertain the objections of others (as per Kate O'B's comments yesterday about not "dignifying" faculty/alumni objections with a response). Your excessive concern for whether the AMSoL community is fully considering Monaghan's mandate, while putting no obligation on him or yourself for similar consideration for the community, is baffling. Add to that the fact that Monaghan/Dobranski have repeatedly stated their position that the opinions of faculty, alumni, and students are irrelevant.

- Any feasibility study must consider the alternative to the proposal. This "feasibility study" is not going to fully explore how AMSoL can stay the course, in Michigan, without Monaghan's financial backing. Any study that refuses to examine the alternative is merely a pretense to fait accompli, and should be rejected as such from the start.

- The issues at hand are now well beyond merely moving to Florida, a symptom of deeper problems.

 
At 3:27 PM, Blogger cuckoo said...

This discussion is out of hand. It is an embarrassment to Ave Maria School of Law and to the community of those who support its work.

Let me be clear. The mere fact of a very public debate as to the merits of a move to Florida is not what is embarrassing. It is the tone of the debate and the mudslinging; it is the name calling and the premature action on the part of the Alumni Association, purportedly representing the interests of all Alumns; as if these were not enough, it is the presence of these in the face of little to no factual evidence that debase Ave Maria and, to the extent that the law school is associated with Catholic and Christian life, the Catholic and Christian life.

If one thing can be said for sure, it is the following: The Board hasn't decided to move the school to Florida. Students and former students have no access to countless relevant documents and are therefore incapable of knowing whether a move to Florida will be in the best interests of Ave Maria. Those close to Ave Maria have no idea if Dean Dobranksi and the Board of Govenors will act in the best interests of Ave Maria. They certainly have no reason to think otherwise. (The suggestion that bias must be present because the Dean and the Board have not, in a knee jerk reaction, rejected the proposed move is pretty lame, one must admit.)

At this point, what students and former students can and should do is make known to the Dean, the Board and those conducting the feasibility study those factors they consider to be import in making a decision as to whether or not to move Ave Maria.

Speculation, name-calling, and hysteria do not serve the interests of Ave Maria School of Law either in reaching an informed, prayerful decision about the long-term future of the school or in establishing a reputation as a professional and quality law school.

They are doubly inappropriate in the face of, well, nothing really...no supporting evidence at all. The Alumni Assoc. resolution was indeed unworthy of response.

 
At 3:43 PM, Blogger Torgo said...

cuckoo, you are named well.

 
At 4:46 PM, Blogger informationoverload said...

Indeed, cuckoo is correct. I have personally spoken with MANY AMSoL students, and they are ashamed at the way some of our class-mates, a vocal minority, have been conducting themselves.

With regard to petitions, no-confidence votes, etc. there is wide-spread misinformation, and actually, what may constitute impropriety in the way petitions were circulated and presented.

It's been an embarassment. Some students at Ave seem to like to break things just to hear them crack, and say things just to hear their voice.

I understand that people want to do good things, and attorneys are meant to argue and create documents. However, why not focus on the folks who are aborting babies, pushing the gay agenda, and killing off the elderly and ill instead of our esteamed Board of Governors.

The tasteless post here about Kate O'Bierne is childish. For crying out loud! You want to demonize this woman just because she got rattled while a few hostile students verbally assaulted her, and she didn't phrase things to your liking? I am ashamed.

The more good people you demonize, the less credibility you have. And torgo (whatever that means) you've got no room to go off on someone else's post name.

 
At 5:52 PM, Blogger mrbooks said...

It is interesting, Cuckoo, that you insist that there is "...no factual evidence...no supporting evidence at all."

Is it because you are from outside Ann Arbor and unfamiliar with the well known history, in these parts, of TM's impulsive behavior? Is it because you have not seen earlier postings about the history of AMC's demise? Or, is it just that you disbelieve these reports?

Granted, these are not proof-positive that the speculation of AMSOL's ill fate is true. It is, however, at the very least,real evidence that a danger exists.

Repeated "promises made, promises broken;" conflict of interest in the board membership, lack of concern for - indeed, deception toward - individual employees and new-hires, among other things, are all a very real part of that history.

If, as you say, some are being hysterical, they at least have some tangible reasons for being so. Those who have already been through the ringer you are going through, including some who won't be out of it until they are out of work at the end of May just being one of them.

 
At 10:08 PM, Blogger percy said...

It is shocking to me that someone could think there is no problem here, in that the Florida thing has seriously harmed AMSOL's stability, earned in great part by the sacrifice and success of the founding faculty and students, and yet while there was NEVER ANY NEED TO MOVE AMSOL, except to serve the best interests of ANOTHER institution, namely AMU.

 
At 10:17 PM, Blogger informationoverload said...

Mr. Brooks,

You mentioned the well known history in these parts. Are you refering to my statement just prior, which said, "I have personally spoken with MANY AMSoL students, and they are ashamed at the way some of our class-mates, a vocal minority, have been conducting themselves.

With regard to petitions, no-confidence votes, etc. there is wide-spread misinformation, and actually, what may constitute impropriety in the way petitions were circulated and presented.

It's been an embarassment. Some students at Ave seem to like to break things just to hear them crack, and say things just to hear their voice.

I understand that people want to do good things, and attorneys are meant to argue and create documents. However, why not focus on the folks who are aborting babies, pushing the gay agenda, and killing off the elderly and ill instead of our esteamed Board of Governors.

The tasteless post here about Kate O'Bierne is childish. For crying out loud! You want to demonize this woman just because she got rattled while a few hostile students verbally assaulted her, and she didn't phrase things to your liking? I am ashamed."

Indeed, there is evidence; there is deception; there is a very real history. It pertains to hysteria caused by the ill will of a minority of students who are filling the air with conjecture, misinformation and distrust in order to promote their agenda; to see to it that the Florida issue NEVER gets to the point of a full and complete feasibility study. They are willing to fullfill this agenda at any cost, even their honor and the honor of the school.

The spin coming from these blogs has had its day. The truth is evident for all to see. Stop the unjust agenda against good people who are working in the best interest of the law school with an unbiased and open mind.

 
At 10:32 PM, Blogger informationoverload said...

Mr. Brooks,

I will give you one example of what I am talking about, so that you understand why I feel the way I do.

A petition was circulated a few weeks ago, and students were told it was in opposition to moving the school to Florida right now. A few days later, we received an email stating that about 150 signitures had been received, and inviting us all to read the wording of the petition in hope that more would sign.

Only then was the hyper-critical wording about Dean Dobranski made obvious, in that it said our faith in him was "shattered" and called for the BoG to "immediately cease the feasibility study." This is quite different than signing in support of not moving to Florida right now.

This is shameful. There is as much reason, if not more to distrust those fighting the Board. Don't believe anything you hear or read until you verify it for yourself. Personally, I have a lot more trust in the Cardinals on our BoGs than a few vocal students passing misleading petitions demanding the Dean's job.

 
At 10:54 AM, Blogger RealityCheck said...

Shtupp, you have reiterated my points. I explicitly said that AMSOL is not the Church and my analysis is very much based upon Monaghan as the “source.” I might humbly ask you to read it again.

Anakin, thanks for the dialogue. I will answer your questions, as I am able.

1. The “merits” themselves should be shown in the study. It is difficult to argue based upon potential—positive or negative. Monaghan put forth a resolution to commission the study (I am assuming this) and the board voted to proceed on the potential for greater success. Those opposed also look at the potential, but for failure. My inclination is to be in the latter camp. Nonetheless, I would like to see the results of the study. The board will vote as they see fit and based upon my own analysis I can agree or disagree. If they were to vote for a move and the study clearly indicated a detriment or even a lack benefit, I’d move for a JNOV. In that situation I would not be surprised if someone brought a lawsuit. I would like to see the results, however, so I can judge for myself. The silencing opposition charge is more difficult. There are a number of rumors floating around, but considering the current milieu around the school, it is difficult to see how that charge sticks. If “silenced” means a rejection by the administration of this or that request or proposal, I can see why people would be upset. But to say that there is no forum for public or private expression of concerns seems a bit much to swallow. You might ask if those who are not so vocally opposed (to everything) might not be the ones who are silenced. I hear little more than hostility toward the school expressed publicly except in this forum. It is somewhat ironic, no?

2. Regarding immorality, it stems from the consideration itself of moving to Florida. Cardinals are powerful men: what if one offered land and influence to move to a certain spot they wanted a school and put forth a resolution to do so? Would that be immoral? The immorality spoken of seems to bubble up from the desires and intent of Monaghan. His desires and intentions may be misguided, but I don’t see how that categorizes them as “immoral.” I think we return to the notion that his desires are the source of evil and if he is responding to temptations of one sort or another I don’t see how it is our responsibility to do more for his soul than pray for his resistence.
Also, to say “just accept it” (which I did not say) is to abandon the project. Acceptance is the final action of the one who participates not the one who squawks and runs away. Unfortunately, there are ways of participating that are at best counter productive and we have seen them too often. Not too many people respond well to dialogue after a punch in the face.

3. Judge Ryan’s resignation was a statement by him to be sure. He could have let his term run out. He presumably thinks Prof. Rice was treated badly and that moving to Florida is a bad idea. Ok. I don’t see anything more except perhaps that he doesn’t like Monaghan, but even that is not clear. If he thought something truly illegitimate or illegal were going on don’t you think he would do more than “make a statement?”

RC

 
At 7:27 PM, Blogger vebnworb13 said...

informationoverload,

the petition went around with a copy of the text and a signature page to all who signed. The text was emailed to each student, some students twice. The language was never changed and all who signed were asked to read the petition first. Any confusion as to the wording of the two sentences you mention was not due to any inappropriate behavior on the part of the students gathering signatures, but rather on those who read it too hastily to understand or refused to read it at all. There were actually students who read the petition and decided not to sign for the reasons you site. In addition it is difficult to see how a "vocal minority" was upsetting so many students when approximatly half of the student body signed on to the petition. The petition never called for anyone's job. It did not ask for resignation or a firing- all it asked for was renewed confidence in the administration. Even though you do mention the petition was emailed to you, you still don't know what it says. And please do not put quotes around exact phrases that were not found in the petition.

 
At 8:18 PM, Blogger AmenDicoVobis said...

Frankly I am amazed that a person who knows so little about the situation at the Law School would just walk into a group of students who have been bound together for years with the alumni and faculty and start spouting off the nonsense and personal attacks that she did. As if she's just going to waltz in and fix everything for BD and TM because she's supposed to be "somebody". The paradox of how the BOG claims to be Catholic yet eats its own is a wonder to behold.

It just goes to show you that it doesn't take brains and decorum to be neocon. Does she think she's talking to a bunch of stupid children. She's talking about a bunch of people who are lawyers to a bunch of people who are about to become lawyers. Thank goodness that the more the BOG and BD step in, the more they step into it.

 
At 9:54 PM, Blogger informationoverload said...

veb,

While I recognize that you are attempting to defend the petition, you have actually proven my main point; An untold number of students signed the petition, but "read it too hastily to understand or refused to read it at all." Many of those who did read and understand it elected not to sign it. "Approximately half of the student body signed the petition." Therefore, less than half of the students signed the petition knowing what it said. The petition IS the work of a vocal minority, who is, according to my personal conversations, upsetting many students.

Please understand, we are all friends, but petitions and no confidence votes are divisive by their vary nature.

Unfortunately, someone put a lot of pressure on the SBA by sending out an anonymous bulk email asking "when will the SBA act?" Well, they did. And now, most of us wish they hadn't listened to the anonymous voice in the email.

 
At 11:22 PM, Blogger vebnworb13 said...

I was more talking about the "impropriety" you suggest than the sheer numbers. The petition was dealt with the way it was to avoid any problems. There is nothing more you can do to be sure people are informed than what was done in this case. Of course some people didn't like the petition, some people disliked a few words, and some people just don't want to be involved- and that's OK. It does not mean that anyone has done anything shamefull or untrustworthy as you say. I also wanted to clarify that no one was calling for people's jobs either. I mention the numbers just because I am interested in how big this vocal minority is and why half the student body signed a petition just to please them. I don't know where the email to the SBA was from, but I don't recall th eSBA being involved in writing the petition, although many of the members did sign it (as did law review, honor board, moot court, other student org boards ect...) I would also be interested in what, other than the petition, you feel this group of students has done to upset the rest of us? Keeping in mind what upsets one person may not bother another, I just inquire.

 
At 11:37 AM, Blogger Somebeach said...

Infooverload,

I am rather concerned by your comment that:

"you have actually proven my main point; An untold number of students signed the petition, but "read it too hastily to understand or refused to read it at all."


We are all in law school yet you think you can prove a point by claiming that people here sign petitions without reading them? If so, you tar us with a pretty damning brush. Did you know that michigan law does generally does not consider it to be possible for there to be fraudulent inducement in the signing of a petition. This is in regard to petitions having legal effect, but the principle is the same: "If you were too damn lazy to read it, it is your own damn fault. Don't come whining about something you signed purely volunatarily".

Your arguement is IMHO a rather hackneyed way of trying to discredit any large group which doesn't agree with you. "If the numbers are against you, claim they don't know what they were doing". BAMN and the Michigan Board of Canvassers tried the same thing with the MCRI and they were slapped down multiple times by the Court of Appeals, sactioned monetarily, and contempt proceedings were brought.

If you disagree with someone, then disagree. Don't try to undermine their credibility by insulting the intelligence of those support them.

 
At 11:11 AM, Blogger L. von Shtupp said...

1) choosing NOT to sign a petition is NOT the same as endorsing the petition's contrary

2) a "majority" is not needed to operationally define a problem situation, for a "majority vote" does not dictate truth; pandering use of the term "minority" is ineffective

3) "Stop the unjust agenda against good people who are working in the best interest of the law school with an unbiased and open mind."
Unbiased and open minds would not conduct a single option "feasibility study" (ie. How can we move to Monaghan's Florida development and keep his money?). The fact is that the Board is not open to the option Those so concerned about open-mindedness should put as much energy into mandating that AMSOL look at the feasibility of the alternative - How can we stay in Michigan and financially adjust to Monaghan's choice to withdraw support?

To those who bloviate about "unbiased open-mindedness" for Monaghan's singular command to the exclusion of all other options (including a Monaghan-less AMSL) - you're laughable, much in the same way that liberals think themselves to be unbiased and open-minded.

 
At 12:20 PM, Blogger TheLawDog said...

The people who still think there is not an effort to justify rather than explore a move simply must be living in an alternate universe!

Let's look at a small sampling of what of WHAT WE KNOW:

1. The faculty who have dealt with the BOG, Dobranski, et. al, and KNOW how the school is being run and this move is being approached from personal experience voted "no confidence" in Dean Dobranski by an overwhelming majority.
2. The Alumni Association Board who deals with Dean Dobranski on a host of issues (the dean or his representative participate in all meetings) voted no confidence in Dean Dobranski by an overwhelming majority.

3. Over half of the current students, with finals coming up,voted no confidence in Dean Dobranski (my experience was that it was hard to get any one engaged during the last semester of the year near finals time).

Certainly, these three groups, who know more than every single person on this blog combined, AND deal directly with the Dean, know the mood, know facts about how decisions are being made, and know that if the Dean is not replaced that the school is in big trouble. Shame on you who say that those who stand up for the dignity and rights of those who have been (and continue to be) ignored in the whims of TM are tearing anything down. Just because you want to believe the best of people doesn't mean it is true. People have invested their lives and livihoods in AMSL, and to simply ignore them and their life investments, to move the school to a nonexistent campus is contrary to social teachings. Ask yourself this question. Who stands to gain financially in moving the school, and who does not? I would start thinking hard about who has their financial future tied up in Florida when attacking people's motives or tactics. I am confident that each of the three groups above tried diplomacy, and were met with disregard. AMU is all the evidence you need of what lengths some will go to achieve their ends.
Tack on how rapidly this issue was brought up after Charlie Rice was ousted (including the changing tactics in his removal), as well the clear distraction this issue has been to the Dean himself, who claims he didn't even know we were going to be ranked this year in U.S. News, AND the shocking dependency of the school on TM (shouldn't we have started to raise some money in 5 years?!) and this issue is not even a close one. Face it, TM wants the school in Florida, and he's changed the Board to get more people on it who will serve that goal. He's underestimated those who would oppose it for very valid reasons, and now has to do damage control. These are just the surface-level facts that are out there, that even a disinterested person can find. Imagine what else there is to know. But you who advocate waiting before action are advocating injustice. TM did not start the law school alone. It was an effort that included founding faculty, first class students (now alumni), as well as TM. ALL of these segments should have significant input in the decision. When the folks CONDUCTING the feasibility study start explaining why Florida is to be preferred you know the fix is in. I applaud thoughtful action of the type undertaken by the faculty, students and AA Board.

 
At 4:09 PM, Blogger informationoverload said...

The faculty is calling for TM to recuse himself from any vote.

The faculty, themselves are not credible on the issue of moving to Florida because a majority of them have an inherent conflict of interest.

They do not want to have to relocate themsleves and their families to Florida, and many may not even be able to relocate to Florida...
EVEN IF IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE LAW SCHOOL.

Additionally, I have personally seen spinning, intentional spreading of rumors and misleading of students in order to put pressure on the administration. Lies won't work.

The faculty have been paid since the day the school was opened. Perhaps some were even paid before. Monaghan was NOT paid. In fact, his donations did the paying. AMSoL could have (and did) find different or additional faculty. It could not have found another TM.

This blog is a disgrace to AMSoL. Quit spreading lies, division and hatred.

And this is coming from an AMSoL student who has not decided to be for or against a move yet! I am simply waiting for the feasibility study to be completed and trusting in our distinguished Board to make a prayerful and informed decision. You are NOT winning the hearts and minds of AMSoL with your hatred, pride and stubborness.

 
At 5:26 PM, Blogger AmenDicoVobis said...

To: informationoverload as you wait "trusting in our distinguished Board"

I can't respond to all the misleading innuendo, non-sequiturs, and unfounded implications of your post. Just a few observations:

I am almost embarrassed to point out the obvious fact to you that the BOG has "distinguished" itself only by its "pride" and "stubborness" in failing to respond in any meaningful way to all three stakeholding groups in the School. I personally wouldn't hold my breath waiting to make a "prayerful and informed decision." Since they refuse to even talk to any of us, it is obvious they don't want to be informed. They have full confidence in the "strong" and "effective" leadership of the Dean. Well, poor guy, one out of four, ain't bad.

Also I wouldn't be so flippantly confident about what is "lies, division and hatred" and about who is and isn't winning the hearts and minds of persons involved with AMSL. Try as you might to spin the facts to favor your every decreasing minority view, the spin favors those challenging the Dean's and BOG's conduct. When your opposition (and their "help") can only respond by stonewalling and stiff arming, it's a pretty clear indication whose winning the argument on logical and moral terms.

 
At 7:58 PM, Blogger res_ipsa_loquitur said...

By the way, the founding faculty put up a chunk of their own money (proportionally more than Monaghan's share in relation to what they owned overall) and agreed to work unpaid for the first year.

I guess when you're overloaded with information, you're bound to forget a fact or two...

 
At 5:06 PM, Blogger informationoverload said...

Res,

Did any of them think to put into their contract that the Law School would always be located in Ann Arbor? If they have a contract that states this, it would be very much to their advantage. However, if a bunch of law professors failed to specify this term which is so important to them all, it would not look so good. Since you are a master of the facts, perhaps you could share this fact with my little, overloaded brain.

 
At 5:42 PM, Blogger somebeach said...

The inanity of what you suggest is staggering. For one, if you had paid attention in contracts, you would know that there is no punitive action for breaching them, only damages. Thus, the board could easily and legally breach these contracts without any repercussions outside of damages (Whatever those would be. Severance pay?)

For two, the location of an entity is generally not contractual, at least in regards to contractual obligations internal to the entity. What you should be asking is whether there was some provision in the original chartering (or whatever was done) of the school as to location.

However, to suggest that this should be done, is ridiculous. The faculty (or majority thereof) are not blanketly opposed to any possibility of the school moving, but rather are opposed to this particular move based upon the prudential concerns which surround it. Remember, the whole ave town/florida thing did not come up until after the law school was established. Originally, ave U was to be built upon the land around Domino's Farms. It was only when the township refused to grant the permits/zoning that TM decided to collect his toys, say "to heck with Ann Arbor", and head to Florida.

You are asking questions which are unfounded, irrelevant, and indicate a pretty poor grasp of what has been and is going on.

 
At 11:12 PM, Blogger informationoverload said...

somebeach,

I take it you have an intimate knowledge of why the faculty is acting the way they are. Please explain, because the action of a no-confidence vote creates an unbridgable gap between the Administration and Faculty. Thus, the school has been severely damaged. Is the faculty's concern about moving the school to Florida so great as to risk the future of the school all together?

Yes, a move to Florida would likely create a new and different Ave Maria School of Law, but how does anyone know, without a feasibility study, if the disadvantages of the move would outweigh the advantages? Is it even "feasible" for Monaghan to invest a ton of money into a law school in Ann Arbor when its growth potential will be constantly challenged and put in check by Ann Arbor?

Certainly, the professors at AMSoL have some sort of employment contract. Is there anything in it which would prevent a moving of the law school? If not, is there anything to your knowledge in the original charter which would prevent the law school from moving?

Most importantly, do you think the faculty will take legal action? Can we please have a productive conversation without insults? I respect your position and sincerely want to know more.

 
At 11:38 PM, Blogger AmenDicoVobis said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 11:40 PM, Blogger AmenDicoVobis said...

The threads seem to be getting off the topic here. Remember, the point is to rake Kate over the coals for the sheer gall, audacity, indelicacy, boorishness and plain stupidity of her remarks to the student body. Now let's stay on point.

INFOVO I would appreciate it if you could join in, otherwise I might have to say you're being divisive.

 
At 1:01 AM, Blogger informationoverload said...

amend,

Way to go! You have quickly taken the focus off meaningful discourse and brought us right back into sarcasm!

Did you stop to think that a vote against the Dean was a vote against the Board in its action of ordering the feasibility study?

How would you expect them to react?

Before you continue to hammer AMSoL's BoG for having the GAUL to not agree with YOU, you may want to remind yourself who you are talking about....

http://www.avemarialaw.edu/prospective/faculty/fac2.cfm

 
At 9:33 AM, Blogger AmenDicoVobis said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 9:35 AM, Blogger AmenDicoVobis said...

nfoOVO,

So you've shown your true colors as a mere respector of titles. It is interesing that you clammer for argument but can respond to criticisms only by pointing to authority. Take a class in rhetoric. You're doing pitifully.

By the way, the faculty and students aren't so shabby themselves, and they know more about legal education than most of the BOG members, and, it seems you forgot, that is what this is about:

http://www.avemarialaw.edu/prospective/faculty/fac1.cfm

 
At 9:35 AM, Blogger Boko Fittleworth said...

IO,

Why the French-bashing?

 
At 9:42 AM, Blogger AmenDicoVobis said...

Charles,

The Gauls have some celtic blood tie through Northern France with the Irish. The connection with Kate was obvious. I appreciate InfoOvo coooperation with my request in returning the discussion in this thread to her.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home