* Harrison clearly made inappropriate comments of a political nature; I started a blog that, by UAB's own policy, is not political in nature. At the time of my firing, I never had endorsed a political candidate, party, or campaign. I also had not identified myself as a UAB employee and did not write about matters related to work.
* While Harrison apparently did not endorse a presidential assassination, he did seem to make light of a would-be criminal act. This indicated that he is not terribly concerned about acts of gross injustice; I, on the other hand, spoke out against injustice--especially corruption in Alabama state courts and the apparent political prosecutions, at the federal level, of Democrats Don Siegelman in Alabama and Paul Minor in Mississippi.
* The evidence against Harrison is overwhelming. Every news account I've seen indicates he did indeed use the Obama assassination story as a teaching tool. The evidence against me is nonexistent. UAB's own IT guru admitted I had never typed the first letter of my blog at work. With that off the table, UAB apparently leaned on vague allegations that I was "researching" my blog at work, constituting non-work related activity.
This "researching my blog" charge is nonsensical on multiple levels. The claim seems to be that I was checking various news items about the Siegelman case, and then posts would show up on my blog about the Siegelman case. In making this charge, UAB conveniently ignored my job description. My fellow editors and I were charged with, among many other things, keeping up with current events so that we could present possible story ideas for our some 20 alumni publications, covering almost every academic subject at a major research university.
The Siegelman story was of particular interest because (a) It was the biggest story in Alabama at the time, one with major national interest; (b) Siegelman, when he was governor, was ex oficio president of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, which governs UAB; (c) Richard Scrushy, Siegelman's codefendant, was (and is) UAB's most famous alumnus and had his name on any number of buildings before he went to prison; (d) It touched on political science, Alabama history, criminal justice--all topics of study at UAB.
In short, I would have been neglecting my duty if I had not been keeping up with the Siegelman story. So I essentially got fired for doing my job.
And how is this for more irony? Part of UAB's allegations seems to be that, in my spare moments, I was looking at blogs--dangerous, subversive stuff like No Comment, by Scott Horton at harpers.org. Again, however, UAB ignored my job duties. Pam Powell, my supervisor, had repeatedly told all of us to learn about "new media," including blogs, so that we could offer such services to our clients in the various UAB schools. We all knew that communication was moving away from the printed page and toward digital formats, so this was an effort to stay on the leading technological edge.
I, indeed, used my research to make several "new media" suggestions that generated new business for our department. What was my reward? I got fired.
Here is perhaps the nuttiest part of UAB's "researching my blog" claim. It totally ignores the digital nature of the Web. The material is there 24/7; it isn't going anywhere. As any blogger knows, if you want to research something on the Web, you can find it, read the relevant parts and link to it in a matter of minutes. You can cut and paste parts directly into a post in a matter of seconds. There is no reason to "research" any non-work material at work.
The time-consuming part of blogging is actually writing the stuff. And UAB's own expert admitted I wasn't doing that.
What's the real difference between the Harrison case and mine? The ugly truth is this: Political speech that trashes a progressive, especially a black one, is acceptable in Alabama; Political speech that questions the actions of conservatives must be punished.
When I get into court with UAB--and that day is coming soon--the university undoubtedly will contend that the content of my blog had nothing to do with the decision to fire me.
But the words of Anita Bonasera, UAB's director of employee relations, tears that story to shreds. After I was placed on administrative leave, I called Bonasera to ask several questions about the grievance process. In the course of the conversation, Bonasera made it clear that I was targeted, and ultimately fired, because of my blog content about the Siegelman case.
I tape recorded the conversation, so it's not a he said/she said deal. Is there a double standard regarding political speech in Alabama public education? The answer is yes, and below is resounding proof.
(Some background: The clip lasts a little more than three minutes. For roughly the first 1:30, I'm trying to explain to Bonasera the nature of my job duties--that I wasn't engaged in non-work activity. At about 1:50, Bonasera admits that these employment issues were related to my blog--and then tries to backtrack. While backtracking, at roughly 2:08, she admits that I was targeted because of the Siegelman content on my blog.)
Audio: UAB and the Cost of Blogging About the Siegelman Case
* While Harrison apparently did not endorse a presidential assassination, he did seem to make light of a would-be criminal act. This indicated that he is not terribly concerned about acts of gross injustice; I, on the other hand, spoke out against injustice--especially corruption in Alabama state courts and the apparent political prosecutions, at the federal level, of Democrats Don Siegelman in Alabama and Paul Minor in Mississippi.
* The evidence against Harrison is overwhelming. Every news account I've seen indicates he did indeed use the Obama assassination story as a teaching tool. The evidence against me is nonexistent. UAB's own IT guru admitted I had never typed the first letter of my blog at work. With that off the table, UAB apparently leaned on vague allegations that I was "researching" my blog at work, constituting non-work related activity.
This "researching my blog" charge is nonsensical on multiple levels. The claim seems to be that I was checking various news items about the Siegelman case, and then posts would show up on my blog about the Siegelman case. In making this charge, UAB conveniently ignored my job description. My fellow editors and I were charged with, among many other things, keeping up with current events so that we could present possible story ideas for our some 20 alumni publications, covering almost every academic subject at a major research university.
In short, I would have been neglecting my duty if I had not been keeping up with the Siegelman story. So I essentially got fired for doing my job.
And how is this for more irony? Part of UAB's allegations seems to be that, in my spare moments, I was looking at blogs--dangerous, subversive stuff like No Comment, by Scott Horton at harpers.org. Again, however, UAB ignored my job duties. Pam Powell, my supervisor, had repeatedly told all of us to learn about "new media," including blogs, so that we could offer such services to our clients in the various UAB schools. We all knew that communication was moving away from the printed page and toward digital formats, so this was an effort to stay on the leading technological edge.
I, indeed, used my research to make several "new media" suggestions that generated new business for our department. What was my reward? I got fired.
Here is perhaps the nuttiest part of UAB's "researching my blog" claim. It totally ignores the digital nature of the Web. The material is there 24/7; it isn't going anywhere. As any blogger knows, if you want to research something on the Web, you can find it, read the relevant parts and link to it in a matter of minutes. You can cut and paste parts directly into a post in a matter of seconds. There is no reason to "research" any non-work material at work.
The time-consuming part of blogging is actually writing the stuff. And UAB's own expert admitted I wasn't doing that.
What's the real difference between the Harrison case and mine? The ugly truth is this: Political speech that trashes a progressive, especially a black one, is acceptable in Alabama; Political speech that questions the actions of conservatives must be punished.
When I get into court with UAB--and that day is coming soon--the university undoubtedly will contend that the content of my blog had nothing to do with the decision to fire me.
But the words of Anita Bonasera, UAB's director of employee relations, tears that story to shreds. After I was placed on administrative leave, I called Bonasera to ask several questions about the grievance process. In the course of the conversation, Bonasera made it clear that I was targeted, and ultimately fired, because of my blog content about the Siegelman case.
I tape recorded the conversation, so it's not a he said/she said deal. Is there a double standard regarding political speech in Alabama public education? The answer is yes, and below is resounding proof.
(Some background: The clip lasts a little more than three minutes. For roughly the first 1:30, I'm trying to explain to Bonasera the nature of my job duties--that I wasn't engaged in non-work activity. At about 1:50, Bonasera admits that these employment issues were related to my blog--and then tries to backtrack. While backtracking, at roughly 2:08, she admits that I was targeted because of the Siegelman content on my blog.)
Audio: UAB and the Cost of Blogging About the Siegelman Case
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
2
