| OCR Text |
Show 9 V5ce II iflhe ippj - Art student claims Jones' action unfair is trying to stall until s,. a controversy, or k it , 01 ,s in -se again nP , Fami'y squabble Is it possible the enmm ll rever? a decision Sn7a, thereby causing a tS Univet committee ever n tI """ Q department. Is it concerned about thefrown X they are about justice Is !" PolltiP04 intentionally tryiniC diggm up a skeleton. Thifk nV r"W: ' cynical, but students do e these days. nave cause to tf If Mr. Jones is desniwi j his views, it would be best fort -stead of fabricating LaS,Word ' I Editor: Why all the complexity, the mood of delicacy, and the subtle evasion? Let's hold the art department to its original claim, a claim which has been disproven by a student petition of 120 art student signatures circulated about three weeks ago in the art department, not to mention the support by most of the younger faculty. Now providing the administration really intends to be effected by student opinion, Mr. Jones must be reinstated. It is quite possible that certain people just plain don't like Mr. Jones around, but I assume those involved are above such petty things. Are the veils of mystery a ploy to give the appearance of substance to a case that is much more complex than is necessary to decide the question? Those who signed the petition, all art students, were saying that ". . . his teaching effectiveness and his professional activities are entirely adequate to deserve continued employment at the University." (Quote from the petition.) Why should out of state critics be more significant on this question than the students, since questions of taste will forever be debatable and hence, unresolvable. How is it that the tenure committee thinks students are less capable in matters of taste than a museum director. Why not save the plane fare. The tenure committee is eettiM, by prolonging and comp'Efi i-ecause the students hav 5af determining question, unless T Vf faculty are the last wo din rtc l111 No doubt every faculty T 11 of them, has somlktX , another, and no douhf th "Pposlll0llls I opposition. Obviously Jones a ' opponentsandifhelosesthecase, i . of the irrationalism and ! Co characterizes this whole venture, 2; I dominates the system. 3i( How peculiar it is that we sit in Ct contemplating the glories of man !e, refinements of tragedy, but our piousa elevating and divine only as long as then- the books, since we are so busy with out'cop ft and such. " , Paul 'i Graduate a c ,n Unverifiable complaint Student opinion has been submitted. Jones is competent and, in the second place, the claim against him cannot be verified - repeat - verified. Of course there is a difference in artistic prowess between one who is simply not an artist, not involved in art, and one who is, but this is not the question. Jones is, to begin with, an artist of considerable artistic involvement which forces the question not into one of either-or, but into a question of categorical subtleties which cannot be evaluated to everyone's satisfaction. It seems to me there is far too much back room politics and pretentious psychologizing here and the tenure committee should stop trying to complicate what is very simple. Is it possible that the committee Partiality shown in reviewing Jones' case E Dt tt Another and more serious indication of jt- C i in the action of the committee is as fob M committee has received much testimony it: sq that the motives behind the effort to i Professor Jones have nothing to do with tin; B of his art work nor, indeed, even with tl((. i of his over-all value to the art departmmt contrary, the implication of this testa;, tr these motives are of such a nature as willnol; Ji public exposure and airing. The charge t C made, by more than one person whose f requires that he be taken seriously, that the: of Professor Jones' work was put forth isr 1 for his dismissal because questions about tie: jj of art do not lead themselves to it determination, and at the same time lie ' notoriously hedged about by attitudes tie J special knowledge. Thus, Professor tats1 have a hard time defending himself, and lie' ,, raising public controversy would be mini Another charge has been made: The I , rule that a vote on tenure or dismissal beta- ballot was violated; that, in the faculty n'- which Professor Jones' dismissal was voted" a was a motion made that the vote to fc - Editor: I find the editorial on Professor Earl Jones' case printed in the May 15th Chronicle, to be so obfuscating that it requires a response. The purpose of this editorial is to advance, in the minds of the students, the notion that the University, and especially the academic advisory committee will make a just and wise decision, with the implication Latter LT KPrexnts " Merest in the XeLntd ?TheH make UUerIy bjective Jone? Hi the dec,s,on to sustain Professor Jones dismissal, there are those, including the S?woufn h We"the UnWerSity Ministration udenthoHv deef"y gratified t0 find that the Sounds fhLqTtt,y.fCePted tnis decision n the Ch it w ' 6 judeement of Solomon, Sid mrdeiseT5' " ' impartial SObvtusrS,Cth CmmMee faculty people (with twn f S"8? 'tS members are part of tL univp two.students), it functions as a vte pS&oT Hp 'niStMtion-ItS Chaiman is it shou'd be re ognizedhr15-1 the Very least' this, theSefo? rhi,n,,d,SP"tedcase8Uch divided. luyames of this committee may be unanimous; in other words, inai tenured faculty were manipulated into'' certain others to dismiss Professor i indeed, happened, what this clearly me' the case against Professor Jones was not one, since if it were, the tenured peope' expected to vote him out by secret ballot . Until these charges are proven false, ! clear that the academic advisory comam business pursuing the question rie L. Professor Jones' art as if this prM motive to dismiss him. If the commitw a searching investigation of these chaises, ( least it would run the risk of W. university practices into serious fZJ. committee has chosen to act on the as r Professor Jones' art is really the qu recognize in this the partiality ot urn. In regard to the line that assures stu is well because a committee as Solomon will make decisions to 'ytf. believes that? If the students net" interest in Professor Jones' case, Mtl this interest democratically by ' made, to 1' evicence, to hear how decisions we what principles were followed, speak up. Mel'1' Impartial members? it treaLir r;er ms rons of integrity? members, imnarS n ,1 Lthey' as committee they arelsThm iiHBW0Uld be follish to assume for a star e let mdeennC!-yet' of Partiality? Well so-called art expel 5 u Ut that the three an art 21t I" by this mmittee are: museum curator 7n Tfh head; tWO' a diversity Hw is that fortack nr;i,aSchoolPreside"t ts, butadm n sSor! wu " a" three' not administrators lke ' Wh this case e these Pressor Jones S V j"' Pathies to, femove him' In thp D dmm,Strators who wish to understood tha" the ffln" f 3 jury' " is he has the Teh t ' J"1Ust have 8 Professor Jones was nf i, JUdged b his Prs '"Perts who wiM udi h 6d t0 help cnoose the art !hice? We are no ttT made the e l Vu that the thrl common sen should elected by administrator adm'nistrators were |
