Professor questions policy’s legality
In an article by James Gaddy entitled “Faculty Senate examines tenure resolution” (April 11), Carruth McGehee was quoted as stating the new PS-36 amendment provides a “protective buffer” and would “raise the threshold of dismissal for cause.” The exact reverse is true, since tenure can be reduced to four to five years. The revised PS-36 follows PM-35, which was imposed without faculty input or consent in May 2000, basically eliminates tenure in principle and spirit.
Three years ago the Senate passed a resolution recommending PM-35’s retraction and questioned its legality. Apparently, past administrations have not determined PM-35’s legality. At April’s Senate meeting I asked McGehee, chairman of the PS-36 committee, if the Senate had obtained legal opinions. He nodded yes. After the meeting I asked for a copy of these opinions, but McGehee said there were none. I asked him why the Senate had not obtained any legal opinions, and he responded there merely would be mixed opinions.
Gaddy wrote McGehee asserted the PS-36 committee had met with legal representatives. The Senate Executive Committee should release any legal opinions regarding the PM-35’s legality. Why have they not worked with appropriate law professors at LSU to determine its legality?
PM-35 is illegal and PS-36 is not needed. When I came to LSU, I signed a contract that defined tenure as “indefinite.” PM-35 tried to change the definition for post-May 2000 tenured faculty, but this change is not retroactive for pre-May 2000 tenured faculty. The Louisiana Supreme Court in 1991 stated when a government employer promises a benefit and the employee accepts it, a judicially enforceable bilateral contract is created. I accepted the contract benefit of tenure as “indefinite.” So did more than 700 other faculty members.
Louisiana faculty are uniquely situated because a 1997 First Circuit Court of Appeals case stated tenured professors do possess a property interest in their positions as faculty members. Thus, I and more than 700 other tenured faculty possess a property right. LSU cannot take away property rights without paying appropriate compensation.
D. Larry Crumbley
Letter showed ignorance about race
I am writing to respond to the article written by Chad Roberts in yesterday’s paper. I have not read such racist filth in quite a while. Mr. Roberts, you can be tired of hearing about “racial issues” all you want. As long as they continue to exist, you will continue to hear about them.
Just as you admonished blacks to not enter bars if they don’t like the rules, I’m advising you to not read The Reveille if you don’t like what you read there.
I have no problem with dress codes. Targeting a specific race with these “codes” is where the issue lies. The fact remains that white males who wear FUBU (which is not owned by the four black males who started the company — it has been sold) are let in the club with the same apparel on that black males could not enter into the club if they had it on. This is blatant discrimination. Your attitude of “it’s their establishment — let them do what they want” is outdated and wrong. Had you spoken to black males, you’d know that they are consistently discriminated against. A friend of mine told me of an instance when he was dressed according to the dress code, but was told that cornrow braids were not allowed. All of a sudden, this dress code that you so ridiculously advocate changed so that he could not be admitted.
I have a feeling that if he didn’t have braids, they’d have found some other reason to not let him into the bar. Maybe, instead of being concerned with these “bling-bling” males, you should be concerned with the binge drinking that assuredly occurs in such a place.
Your ignorance is astonishing. You rant about how blacks say “bling-bling.” Do you know who is the biggest consumer of such “hip-hop” apparel — music, clothes, etc? The biggest consumer is white middle class males — probably not unlike yourself. So, if anyone is likely to say “bling-bling,” it is you.
Kristina McKenzie
Junior — History
NAACP Political Action Chairperson
NAACP president clarifies boycott
There is a misconception that the boycott is because the Tigerland Bars have a dress code. This is furthest from the truth; the reason for the boycott is the racist implications of certain dress codes. This is directed toward the owners of these bars that allow such racial ignorance and cultural insensitivity.
It is disgusting that this University has such uninformed students that would have the gall to write letters saying to “stay out” because we do not “conform” to their rules. It is not about conforming to any rules; it is about denying African Americans the civil liberties that we are granted as Americans. The problem is that these rules are undoubtedly geared toward keeping out the MAJORITY of African Americans. A person who chooses a FUBU shirt, has a pager and wears a chain should not be a threat to any establishment. If chains are a problem, then why are rings allowed or any other jewelry? If FUBU shirts cause a problem, then what about FUBU jackets, jeans, etc? For that matter, would ECKO, Sean John, or any other “urban” clothing line cause a problem? How would all white tennis shoes, such as Air Force Ones, disrupt any establishment? What about all black tennis shoes? How do “visible beepers” affect the establishment, other than the fact that they were a stereotype of African Americans in the late 90s? Is there a difference in a beeper that is not visible, or how about a visible cell phone?
If these bar owners had the decency as business owners to give valid reasons for these rules, then the situation would be different. As a business owner, if a customer feels offended, they should be more than willing to comply.
To those who agree with Chad Roberts, and feel we should just “stay out,” and that we as “black” students always have an issue, then you are ignorant. We will ALWAYS have an issue if people like you do not value equality and diversity in this country. Therefore, if you do not like it, then maybe you should “stay out” of this country.
Melody Robinson
NAACP President