You seem to have missed my comment about the futility of Mr. True's call for the Chancellor's resignation. History has shown us that this approach won't benefit Mr. True's cause, and might actually harm it.

History of UC shows us lots of things. Your assumption that Denton is good or better than the next person may or maynot be correct. That is the nature of change is that you can't always plan results. Your alternative means no change or only advocacy of change when there is a sure thing.

Obviously I am very concerned about University issues. My only crime is to have done substantial research and identified a historical antecedant.
actually it's NOT obvious you are concerned with university issues and quite frankly you sound rather uninformed as to the state of employee affairs on the campus at this time. and please, quit with the victimhood stance. no one is accusing you of a crime, I just think your points are rather uniformed and invalid.

If today's Tent University people spent a little less time protesting and a little more time studying the contemporary political history of the University and the State, they might find effective ways to advance their cause. I would actually like to see some aspects of their platform succeed.

maybe with all your advanced political organizing skills you can offer a free workshop for UCSC agitators. if you don't have the time to do this in person, how about making a manual for effective political change (in your opinion) and posting it on SC IMC for all to benefit from.


.... If I were *Mr. True*, I would stay as long as I could, and continue enjoying the net benefit of my employment relationship.
Obviously, for a person to remain in a particular job, he has to perceive a net benefit -- that is, he has to believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

My point is that *the University* would be justified in firing Mr. True, due to the serious public criticisms that he has levied.

really? so for someone to complain about the actions of the university make them liable for being justifiably fired? even if the employee is factually correct in their assertions? that's an interesting comment from a supposed liberal progressive marxist or whatver you fancy youself to be. maybe all the union employees should be justifiably fired too for criticizing the university for sitting on millions of dollars rather than passing it onto employees in the form of raises.


Mr. True is most welcome to speak out against the University, but the University should also be welcome to defend itself.

This shows how little you know of the inner workings of UCSC. The university DOES have a way of defending itself. It's called LIZ IRWIN. She's the gatekeeper of all info about and regarding UCSC. Prior to her arrival at ucsc the PR department (its called media relations up there) was open about dispersing information. The information dispensed was at least an attempt at being truthful. This is not the case since Liz Irwin has been at the helm. If you care to do more in depth research, do a google search of Liz Irwin and either Goodtimes or Metro. They did a substantial article on the PR machine as gatekeeper at the University. As someone who has actually worked with UCSC for years I can guarantee you that if they want their voice to be heard, they have EVERY avenue available for their message, AND they use it.

It is virtually impossible to fire a public employee.

again, you display ignorance of the subject. what happens up at UCSC is if they chose to target you as a troublemaker, then pressure is put upon you via your supervisor who is management and answers to a upper level supervisor who is either a Vice-Chancellor or VC assistant. VC answer direct to the Chancellor. Get the power dynamic? How do you put pressure on employee? micromanage their hours, tasks, efficiency, attitude. You alter their job description, give them more duties (under the guise of fiscal reorganization) etc. That is why most employees up at UCSC (until recently) have been rather quiet about publically speaking out about UCSC policies. Can someone get fired? It's hard but possible. But far easier is to simply drive them out of their jobs. It's done. I've seen it in at least 4 instances and none of the instances the employees were able to fight back because NONE of the other employees that had facts that would support the fired employees claim were willing to testify or sign affidavits. nice chummy conspiracy of silence up there. but that's okay because its a progressive institution or so they claim.


Think strictly of the employer-employee relationship, and put yourself in the employer's shoes for a change.

actually I AM an employer. just because one is an employer doesn't mean that you have to be an apologist for all employers.

When you have malcontents on your payroll, and they badmouth you publicly, their presence no longer benefits you.

well duh, and this is profound? first off, I don't see true as being a malcontent. of course UCSC will because anyone that isn't a yes man or yes woman is considered a malcontent. So go a couple paragraphs up and see how the university will probably deal with him. but as an employer I am open to hearing what my employees are saying. lets say my product is coffee (it isn't) but one of my employees starts riding me because I sold bad beans in my mix or a bunch of beans that were infested by rats got knowingly ground up and sold by me. I deserve to be outed if I'm conducting myself in such a horrible manner. again, simply because I have the power in the relationship and it is my company doesn't make me god. I simply sign the checks. so what's your point? that you think the tactics of tentU folks need improvement? if that's your stance why do you sound like such a pussy assed apologist telling people they need to be part of the "team" and to "study or work elsewhere" if their critiques can't be more "appropriate"