‘Not rehired’
To the Editor,
Your story (“Textbook controversy,” Aug. 24, p.3) is an accurate report of the events that were reported in the press. You did, however, miss an important underlying fact.
I was “not rehired” because I tried to expose Dr. Sharon Bullock as a member of the Institute of Creation Research. She had been accused of undermining scientific content in her course by students, and some faculty members had also stated their concerns. Yet somehow she wound up on the Bio 101 textbook selection committee despite the administration being aware of her status in the ICR.
Omitting key information about the origins of life and human evolution is a known creationist tactic. It is not a coincidence that the book in question is also sold to many fundamentalist religious schools. The book is a first edition, and it would require advance scouting to have such a preponderance of bible colleges represented on its adoption list. In other words, the book fits an agenda that VCU should not be participating in.
My complaint about the textbook and its strategic failings are directly related to Dr. Bullock’s involvement in the textbook-selection committee. I regret that I did not make this point more clear at first. I received a threat from an administrator that I would “wind up in court” if I discussed Dr. Bullock’s ICR identity with the press. I confess that I buckled to that pressure, in part because I respected the person that made the threat, despite there being obvious implied violations of my First Amendment rights. In any case, it was clear that administration did not want me to talk about Dr. Bullock and the ICR, and I complied.
Dr. (Leonard) Smock told me very clearly that I would not receive a contract renewal offer because I had been guilty of “unprofessional conduct which lacked collegiality.” I did have a verbal agreement with the department to teach 101 and 152 this semester. Shortly after I was “not rehired,” the department was scrambling for Bio 101 instructors. I was, in fact, “needed” at that time. I am certain Dr. (Robert) Holsworth was aware of these facts, and therefore his comments to the contrary are particularly troubling.
Finally, faculty members are understandably concerned about the reputation of the biology department. I am sympathetic, but I have to stand up for myself. I did not intentionally misrepresent the facts as Dr. Holsworth appears to have done. If the faculty feels humiliated, they might want to take a deep breath and turn their eyes to the administration rather than to me. In the words of the ancient Greek playwright Sophocles, “Do not kill the messenger…”
Just because I am the little guy doesn’t mean the administration gets to undermine my good name with impunity just so VCU doesn’t look bad. I had a very good reason to make my claims, and the administration knew it. The administration should own up to its mistakes as I have tried to do.
Sincerely,
Jim Sparks
Who doesn’t like Wal-Mart
The article on the recent tradition of an annual Wal-Mart excursion (“A night out on the town, Wal-Mart style,” Aug. 24, p.16) concluded with a freshman asking: “Who doesn’t like Wal-Mart?”
I took that as an invitation to shed light on the injustices that Wal-Mart commits and inherently harbors. The notion of a university event dedicated to intentional and direct support of the corporation is not entirely shocking, but for an urban university campus setting (with closer, safer and friendlier retail outlets), I can’t figure out how it is justified. The Super Center’s 24/7 operating hours may have been the main attraction, encouraging blossoming freshman consumers to spend one of their first college nights under one unifying roof for a shopping party (Mom and Dad must have been delighted and slept soundly).
For an institution of higher education to overlook, or ignore, the truth that lies in Wal-Mart’s violations of environmental and labor laws is unnerving. What is further troublesome is that the Richmond Police Department was there to talk about crime prevention at such a site and time, neither of which have a history of safety. Wal-Mart’s property, be it parking lots or aisles, have been reportedly “a magnet for crime,” according to West Virginia Justice Larry Starcher, and are even more vulnerable in the late evening hours. These criminals are not merely shoplifters, but armed aggressors, sexual predators and kidnappers.
On the subject of crime and late nights, NBC’s Dateline uncovered that foreign factory workers, whose products end up at Wal-Mart, often work 18 to 19 hours daily to make a mere 17 cents an hour, enough to eat rice and lentils. Also, Wal-Mart has been in the news recently concerning domestic labor laws and their unjust hiring practices. Regardless of your specific purchases, offering the company your business is no way to encourage change of any sort in their low-priced world of corporate inequities. Furthermore, the company has acquired countless environmental violations. When charged, they have routinely paid off the fines in the range of hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars as compensation for their blatant disregard for sound environmental practices. From pollution flowing into storm drains to improperly stored or handled fertilizer and other toxins, this corporate giant has an environmental record as low as its prices. All of these factors allow for their prices to remain low, but consumers should also consider the human cost.
The one-stop shopping that Wal-Mart has essentially monopolized is indeed convenient, but other stores do exist and welcome your business. Aside from the essential video iPod and X-Box 360, school supplies can be purchased at nearby drug stores that are also open 24 hours. Perhaps in choosing which businesses to support, you may take the time and do the research and then answer the question, “Who doesn’t like Wal-Mart?”
– Veronica Tessler