Low faculty morale and infighting at the FAMU College of Law has caused the Dean to hold a weekend team building retreat to try and keep things together.In recent weeks, two tenured faculty members have been told that they may have to reapply for tenure because their paperwork was not properly processed. Nevermind, that they have been on staff for three years and came to FAMU from other law schools where they were tenured. To add insult to injury, we understand, Provost Debra Austin has promoted one professor from assistant to associate who has never published, while leaving two published professors in limbo.
Further, the college's promotion and tenure committee has been ordered to cease all action until the current issues can be resolved.
Listen. Debra Austin hasn't published anything in a refereed journal herself, so this latest action isn't a new revelation. We all know that a more academic person should have been "selected" for the provost position, but, then again, the interim president hasn't published anything remotely scholarly herself. So, everything actually comes back full circle: Who's zooming whom?
ReplyDeleteThe low morale at the law school is not the fault of the current FAMU administration. After playing around with the money and granting tenure to questionable faculty, former dean Luney left a big mess. He spent most of his time socializing on the golf course and provided very little leadership to the faculty and staff leaving the grand DIVA of the law school in charge w/ a lot of power. As a member of the Founding Faculty this law school diva has a "way with the men" in particular, the previous & current men in charge of the law school. She herself has questionable academic credentials and continues to wreck havoc among the students and faculty. She's more than likely at the middle of this mess. She's jealous and threatened by the new professors because she has never written a scholarly paper worth reading-one article cites JET magazine! She says that she taught in China, but that was blown all out of whack- it was one of those pay-to-go study abroad programs. Sheleft Nova and Tulsa law under a cloud.Check out what was said about her on Rate My Professor. This smells like some of her doing.
ReplyDeleteThe interim dean must be smitten by her ways and allowed her to carry out this messy retaliatory act.
The two published professors who were slighted are biggest enemies of the grand diva. Grand diva of the law school is on the promotion & tenure committee. Grand diva got a way with the interim dean. You do the math. Smells like and looks like LL strikes again!
ReplyDeleteThe "two tenured faculty members have been told that they may have to reapply for tenure" because something is not quite right about their credentials. It's just coming out in the wash.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of the Grand Diva LL. Check out the comment on a earlier rattler nation about the "Senior Faculty/Founding Faculty" of the law school: The law school website says that one of the "esteemed" taught at University of Beijing. Talk about stretching the facts! It's a little farfetched. Well for a few thousand dollars, you, too, can participate in the Dwight D. Eisenhower Foundation's "People to People Ambassador's Program" (headed by Eisenhower's granddaughter Mary). It's a simple process: You are "invited to complete and submit your registration and deposit to secure your position among the delegation." However, be fair warned though that "space is limited and registrations will be accepted on a first-come-first-served basis." For $3,497.00 the "esteemed" Founding Faculty member (and you, too) can "participate" in this October's (2006) Professional Delegation to The People’s Republic of China.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone supply the name of the law school diva? I've read all the comments, but I'm interesting in googling her and see what's the deal with the credentials. A name, anyone? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteTo anon @3:53
ReplyDeleteNone of the original faculty has published anything of late & their previous publications are a joke! So, this is the culture at the FAMU COL.
Drum Roll please ... and the Grand Diva of the FAMU COL is LUNDY LANGSTON.
ReplyDeleteTo anon @ 7:32 don't let the FAMU website fool you her publications were mostly symposium papers.
ReplyDeleteoh i get it "LL" is the diva.
ReplyDeleteLundy Langston, Affirmative Action, a Look at South Africa and the United States: A Question of Pigmentation or Leveling the Playing Field? 13 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 333 (1997)
ReplyDeleteVol. 11:2 – Fall 1996
Sweep Searches – The Rights of the Community, and the Guarantees of the Fourth and First Amendments: Moms of the Chicago Public Housing Complex, Revisit Your Civil and Constitutional Rights and Save Your Babies, by Lundy Langston
Some of LL's divorce decree is online. Check out google. i know this is a personal matter and has nothing to do with the law school, but you know sometimes folks carry their personal problems to the workplace and then everyone catches hell for that person's misery.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 10:12 P.M. do one of those articles cite Jet?you mean the grand diva of FAMU COL hasn't written anything since then?????and why such disjointed articles??? affirmative action & 4th Amendment ain't a mix.. hmmmm ... you think these might be articles borrowed from some of her Columbia "men friends" who helped her out on the publication front? a lot of her men friends gave her a shout out in their articles.this is clearly a sign of somebody trying to help give LL some credibility as a professor.if you can't get your crap published then do the next best thing -borrow an article & get a shout out from one of your friends.
ReplyDeleteAnyone know who the "two tenured faculty members have been told that they may have to reapply for tenure because their paperwork was not properly processed" are?
ReplyDeleteloose lips?is LL one of the "two tenured"...?well how did she get the job with one of the highest salaries at FAMU?
ReplyDeleteAnon @10:12 PM both of those journals are produced by STUDENTS and LL published them - ahem - excuse me Anon @ 8:24 AM- borrowed them from her Columbia mens friends almost a decade ago.We've been in the 21st century for 7 years.Where are LL's PEER REFEREED publications?
ReplyDeleteI don't know....
ReplyDeleteLow morale. This ship is sinking. Better get off before you drown. I just do not see any light at the end of the tunnel or any pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, or any silver lining behind a cloud. Just doom and gloom. Iniquity upon iniquity and incompentence upon incompetence. This university (sic) will not survive five more years at this rate.
ReplyDeleteYes, LL is Lundy Langston. Also, she wrote an article on how the looters from Katrina should be able to use the criminal law excuse of necessity. I agree with food and supplies, but stealing 100 FUBU shits is NOT a necessity.
ReplyDeleteRead it for yourself, it sucks!: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20050913_langston.html
I am not sure who the two tenured faculty having to recheck their credentials are, but one of them is Barbara Bernier, who in my opinion should not have a problem. It's just more games from the DIVA trying to hold up her paperwork during the transition from Luney to Douglas. I am sure DIVA LL is the one who called FAMU in Tallahassee and told them to not "actually file" the stuff so that when Douglas came in, LL pointed it out that technically Bernier was not tenured. LL tries to get anyone who is better and smarter than her fired. She's on a power trip.
I did hear a rumor a year ago that LL didn't actually get here LL.M. from Columbia, there was a mixup and she's technically like one class shy. It came out when the new Dean was going over everyone's credentials. Rumor has it she called up to Columbia to get her transcript but there was this big mess and so she had to actually fly up there to fix it or hush it or whatever. Awfully fishy! And the two teacchers who didn't get promoted were published, in better journals than the guy who did get promoted. It's called FAVORITISM!!! Duhhhhh
sorry! That link to the DIVA's masterpiece was cut off. Here it is again, please read it!
ReplyDeletehttp://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20050913_langston.html
Ugh. I see, it's still not working. Try it one more time!
ReplyDeletehttp://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20050913_langston.html
Ok, so after that bunch of numbers and then it goes _la, it should read:
ReplyDelete_langston.html
instead of the _la. This blogger keeps cutting it off!
Langston is a lazy ass. She has not updated her personal Family Law outline since 1999 when she was at Nova, despite the changes in the last 7 years! In class, she discussed all kinds of crazy crap, always off target. She would tell us her personal baby mamma drama and all. Then, a month before the final she distributes copies of her personal outline to her "pets" and if you study only what's on there, you'll get an A. Everyone else wasted their time studying outlines and rereading cases, and that stuff was not even on there. I know this because she used to think I was on her side and gave me a copy but after she slit the throat of two of my favorite professors, she's in the dog house with me! Can't wait to graduate and get outta this place!!!
ReplyDeleteYeah, Hastings Jones got promoted and the other two got shafted. His article (which he allowed me to read) is about prisons becoming private, an OLD issue where there is tons and tons out there, why publish more? Why do something like write about racial rights andd help our situation? Besides he has loose morals, he is getting married to an ex-student named Shontell English. Now tell me that he does not play favorites with grades. Come on! I saw his baby by another woman at the spirit of service awards. She did NOT look happy either.
ReplyDeleteI hear that student enrollment is down, even though we have the new building. I was told that the school could accomodate 400 incoming 1L's and there are only 175 of us (rough estimate of day and night). I guess I should have done more research before coming here.
ReplyDeleteAnon @12:53 check out what was said about LL's Hurricane Katrina piece on professor dowd's blog 13th juror.
ReplyDeletehttp://jackiedowd.blogspot.com/2005/09/check-out-these-commentaries.html
One of LL's "mens friends" Guy-Uriel E. Charles (he was smitten by her ways when he was a law student at U Mich)got her crap published on Findlaw. Wonder if she's going to join Charles in Minnesota? Charles became Co-Dean there this summer (2006) ... LL has a thing for those law school deans & she knows how to work it to get that child support! ... Wonder if she'll become Charles' baby's mama too?
This is what REAL legal scholars thought of LL's Hurricane Katrina article. They called it "deficient of adequate legal research" & "sophomoric chit chat." One said that she didn't even use the correct legal terminology! And LL is passing for a senior tenured professor at FAMU COL!
Professor Langston's article is deficient of adequate legal research. Ms. Langston's position is sorely uninformed and misguided opinion. Her argument lacks logical legal analysis. Langston states, "The defense of necessity is the law and I am only stating what the law allows." However, the article makes no reference to the Louisiana Criminial Code or to its unique terminology (justification). A basic perusal of La. Crim. Code Arts. 18-21 and Comments would have unearthed the following:
Justification; general provisions
LA R.S. 14:18
The fact that an offender's conduct is justifiable, although otherwise criminal, shall constitute a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct. This defense of justification can be claimed under the following circumstances:
(1) When the offender's conduct is an apparently authorized and reasonable fulfillment of any duties of public office; or
(2) When the offender's conduct is a reasonable accomplishment of an arrest which is lawful under the Code of Criminal Procedure; or
(3) When for any reason the offender's conduct is authorized by law; or
(4) When the offender's conduct is reasonable discipline of minors by their parents, tutors or teachers; or
(5) When the crime consists of a failure to perform an affirmative duty and the failure to perform is caused by physical impossibility; or
(6) When any crime, except murder, is committed through the compulsion of threats by another of death or great bodily harm, and the offender reasonably believes the person making the threats is present and would immediately carry out the threats if the crime were not committed; or
(7) When the offender's conduct is in defense of persons or of property under any of the circumstances described in Articles 19 through 22.
Professor Langston's article is deficient of adequate legal research. Ms. Langston's position is sorely uninformed and misguided opinion. Her argument lacks logical legal analysis. Langston states, "The defense of necessity is the law and I am only stating what the law allows." However, the article makes no reference to the Louisiana Criminial Code or to its unique terminology (justification). A basic perusal of La. Crim. Code Arts. 18-21 and Comments would have unearthed the following:
Justification; general provisions
LA R.S. 14:18
The fact that an offender's conduct is justifiable, although otherwise criminal, shall constitute a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct. This defense of justification can be claimed under the following circumstances:
(1) When the offender's conduct is an apparently authorized and reasonable fulfillment of any duties of public office; or
(2) When the offender's conduct is a reasonable accomplishment of an arrest which is lawful under the Code of Criminal Procedure; or
(3) When for any reason the offender's conduct is authorized by law; or
(4) When the offender's conduct is reasonable discipline of minors by their parents, tutors or teachers; or
(5) When the crime consists of a failure to perform an affirmative duty and the failure to perform is caused by physical impossibility; or
(6) When any crime, except murder, is committed through the compulsion of threats by another of death or great bodily harm, and the offender reasonably believes the person making the threats is present and would immediately carry out the threats if the crime were not committed; or
(7) When the offender's conduct is in defense of persons or of property under any of the circumstances described in Articles 19 through 22.
At 11:58 AM, Jacqueline Dowd said...
Thanks for the comment. I know Louisiana law is different, with its base in Napoleonic Code instead of English common law, but it's good to have info from someone who can cite Louisiana law.
At 1:56 PM, Anonymous said...
Law professors have a special responsibility to encourage the free pursuit of learning in their students. They owe a debt to impressionable students (soon to be lawyers) to be objective and to refrain from broad generalizations. It is imperative that they present quality scholarly standards. Strong personal opinions must never seriously hamper or compromise honest academic conduct.
At 1:46 PM, Anonymous said...
Did Professor Langston pay attention in her Jurisprudence classes? Forgot I.R.A.C.? Disregarded basic critical analysis from high school-explandums and explanans, hypotheses and theorems, corollaries and conclusions? As a poor attempt at affording the reader a synoptic view of a well established legal defense, Langston's article lacks depth and is void of any analytical intention. The theoretical justification for Langston's argument rests on very simple assumptions. Under any conception of necessity (justification per LA law), the defense is available when the legislature says so. The LA statute obviously says so. End of story. Langston never articulates sound reasons for her position and resorts to incogitant verbosity. There was no need for Langston to go on and on with the prolonged discourse: "We have watched, night after night ... footage of the plight of the citizens in New Orleans." Yada, yada, yada. Blah, blah, blah. Langston could have even discussed the possibility of the broad equitable discretion of the LA courts to tailor injunctive relief for necessity (justification), irrespective of whether there is a legal defense of necessity (justification)in any LA statute. Law professors like Langston should not stoop to spinning platitudes and refrain from regurgitating the banal remarks spoken by the bobbleheads on CNN and Fox News. In order to initiate and facilitate rational academic discussions, one must engage in scholarship that is thoroughly researched. Langston fails to demonstrate her capacity to properly discuss issues with sound legal authority. Langston's article is inexcusable sophomoric chit chat. It is academically dishonest.
At 12:38 PM, Anonymous said...
I agree irresponsible sophomoric chit chat. The classic cases of Queen v. Dudley & Stephens and United States v. Holmes are not even mentioned in Langston's article (We all remember Queen v. Dudley from Philosophy 101). Then there's the classic 1L case, Vincent v. Lake Erie Trans. Co. (Torts) and the Model Penal Code that expressly discuss necessity, both from legal and a moral points of view. In discussing the defense of necessity Langston should have done a bit of research & read the works of legal scholars like Jules Coleman, Joel Feinberg, Judith Jarvis Thomson, George Christie, etc. The scope of the defense of necessity is widely examined in a variety of legal and philosophical discussions. There is more than enough material to present a comprehensive legal analysis of the situations presented as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Although she touts in her article, "The defense of necessity is the law and I am only stating what the law allows," Langston failed to USE THE LAW to explain and justify her conclusions.
At 1:56 PM, Anonymous said...
Law professors have a special responsibility to encourage the free pursuit of learning in their students. They owe a debt to impressionable students (soon to be lawyers) to be objective and to refrain from broad generalizations. It is imperative that they present quality scholarly standards. Strong personal opinions must never seriously hamper or compromise honest academic conduct.
At 5:41 AM, completely-disgusted said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
At 1:46 PM, Anonymous said...
Did Professor Langston pay attention in her Jurisprudence classes? Forgot I.R.A.C.? Disregarded basic critical analysis from high school-explandums and explanans, hypotheses and theorems, corollaries and conclusions? As a poor attempt at affording the reader a synoptic view of a well established legal defense, Langston's article lacks depth and is void of any analytical intention. The theoretical justification for Langston's argument rests on very simple assumptions. Under any conception of necessity (justification per LA law), the defense is available when the legislature says so. The LA statute obviously says so. End of story. Langston never articulates sound reasons for her position and resorts to incogitant verbosity. There was no need for Langston to go on and on with the prolonged discourse: "We have watched, night after night ... footage of the plight of the citizens in New Orleans." Yada, yada, yada. Blah, blah, blah. Langston could have even discussed the possibility of the broad equitable discretion of the LA courts to tailor injunctive relief for necessity (justification), irrespective of whether there is a legal defense of necessity (justification)in any LA statute. Law professors like Langston should not stoop to spinning platitudes and refrain from regurgitating the banal remarks spoken by the bobbleheads on CNN and Fox News. In order to initiate and facilitate rational academic discussions, one must engage in scholarship that is thoroughly researched. Langston fails to demonstrate her capacity to properly discuss issues with sound legal authority. Langston's article is inexcusable sophomoric chit chat. It is academically dishonest.
At 1:46 PM, Anonymous said...
Did Professor Langston pay attention in her Jurisprudence classes? Forgot I.R.A.C.? Disregarded basic critical analysis from high school-explandums and explanans, hypotheses and theorems, corollaries and conclusions? As a poor attempt at affording the reader a synoptic view of a well established legal defense, Langston's article lacks depth and is void of any analytical intention. The theoretical justification for Langston's argument rests on very simple assumptions. Under any conception of necessity (justification per LA law), the defense is available when the legislature says so. The LA statute obviously says so. End of story. Langston never articulates sound reasons for her position and resorts to incogitant verbosity. There was no need for Langston to go on and on with the prolonged discourse: "We have watched, night after night ... footage of the plight of the citizens in New Orleans." Yada, yada, yada. Blah, blah, blah. Langston could have even discussed the possibility of the broad equitable discretion of the LA courts to tailor injunctive relief for necessity (justification), irrespective of whether there is a legal defense of necessity (justification)in any LA statute. Law professors like Langston should not stoop to spinning platitudes and refrain from regurgitating the banal remarks spoken by the bobbleheads on CNN and Fox News. In order to initiate and facilitate rational academic discussions, one must engage in scholarship that is thoroughly researched. Langston fails to demonstrate her capacity to properly discuss issues with sound legal authority. Langston's article is inexcusable sophomoric chit chat. It is academically dishonest.
At 12:38 PM, Anonymous said...
I agree irresponsible sophomoric chit chat. The classic cases of Queen v. Dudley & Stephens and United States v. Holmes are not even mentioned in Langston's article (We all remember Queen v. Dudley from Philosophy 101). Then there's the classic 1L case, Vincent v. Lake Erie Trans. Co. (Torts) and the Model Penal Code that expressly discuss necessity, both from legal and a moral points of view. In discussing the defense of necessity Langston should have done a bit of research & read the works of legal scholars like Jules Coleman, Joel Feinberg, Judith Jarvis Thomson, George Christie, etc. The scope of the defense of necessity is widely examined in a variety of legal and philosophical discussions. There is more than enough material to present a comprehensive legal analysis of the situations presented as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Although she touts in her article, "The defense of necessity is the law and I am only stating what the law allows," Langston failed to USE THE LAW to explain and justify her conclusions.
Hmmmm.... Guy Charles' article - Fourth Amendment Accommodations, (Un)Compelling Public Needs, and the Fiction of Consent 2 Mich. J. of Race & L. 461 (1997) looks a whole lot like LL's article, Sweep Searches – The Rights of the Community, and the Guarantees of the Fourth and First Amendments: Moms of the Chicago Public Housing Complex, Revisit Your Civil and Constitutional Rights and Save Your Babies. Wonder why he couldn't get her published? Maybe the edits & re-writes would have been overwhelming!
ReplyDeleteOne (basic questions, here...I'm sorry), but what, exactly, is Langston's position at the law school, other than professor? And how is it that she gets to run roughshod over everbody, what with the questionable credentials and all?
ReplyDeleteYour guess is as good as mine. She's been brought on here since before FAMU was set up to be a full tenured professor, along with her baby daddy Omar Saleem who was originally the Dean of Academic Affairs until he got busted for copying PMBR materials for his test because he's too lazy to write his own test (too dumb no doubt) and Luney and Witherspoon swept it under the rug to hide it. Omar stepped down about a year ago because he was getting called into Tallahassee to testify before a grand jury about the Luney/Cunningham million dollar endowment scandal. So Langston and Saleem have some major secret hookup from way on back that can stand the test of time. They recently brought on a Collegue from their law skool days in North Carolina, Reginald Mombrum who does all of their bidding. He's like their puppet. They've enlisted the help of other screwballs up their to do their bidding as well. LL DIVA is currently pissed that Douglas brought in Broussard and Cato who don't take crap from her. However LL still gets away with everything and each time Cato or Broussard get LL's feathers ruffled, LL takes it out on either the students or gets nasty at faculty meetings and starts crazy drama. She also got fired from this little known law school up in NY called Touro College. Funny, it's always absent from her curriculum vitae. Hmmmmmmm. She also needs a pedicure. Oh yeah, and this one semester she showed up the first two weeks pretending not to be able to see without her glasses that she left on the picnic table while playing basketball and she'd stumble around and say she wasn't prepared because she could not read her own notes. Then, mysteriously a month later, she was seeing fine without glasses. The messiah had arrived and healed her! Praise God! Then all of a sudden she could not see again and would wear "prescription sunglasses".
ReplyDeleteHiding her red-eye? Smoke it, light it, blow it out.....
Sunglasses? inside? seems like the diva is hiding something. hmmm-m-m.
ReplyDeletemoreso than hiding whatever, seems to me like she's busy doing other things besides preparing for class. hm-m-m-m-m. in need of a pedicaure. if girlF was all that, she wouldn't even be wearing open-toed shoes in a professional setting. is she just a regular, tenured professor or is does she have another position at the school which allows her to get away with such unscrupulous behavior? Curious.
I know this has nothing to do with the current dialogue here, but CVB is 'bout the nastiest mfer that has ever sat in the president's chair. How the mfer sleeps at night, I'll never mfing know. And, no, I don't personally know the woman, but the ways she has treated faculty members and staff on that campus is about as horrible as one can get. My mother always told me that you have to be careful the way you treat people, because those same people you meet on your way up--not that CVB is on her way up anywhere--certainly not to heaven--you will meet those same people on your way down. Now, why the mfer is so damn nasaty is, quite frankly, beyond me.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the RN blogspot FAMU COL students and faculty. Maybe we can get your legal perspective on how to topple the Bryant administration once and for all.
ReplyDeleteShouldn't you all be studying??
ReplyDeleteProf. Hastings Jones responds posting by anonymous on 9/30/06 @1:08 a.m. …
ReplyDeleteThe first thing that should be understood is that in my opinion the two professors who were up for promotion with me were and are as deserving as I and I hold them in the highest esteem.
The criteria for promotion include Scholarship, Teaching and Community Service. The Committees that promoted me reviewed a submission that ran over 200 pages and documented superior professional performance before arriving at the FAMU College of Law and, since in Teaching and Community service. A copy of this document is posted and available for review outside of my office simply by asking the secretary there (no need to go through me). It will serve as my primary response to this unprincipled attack.
Highlights of my submission for promotion include, in the areas of Teaching and Community Service, superior supervisory and student teaching evaluations and documentation of my being a principal (along with others) in the set up and successful launch of the clinic program of the law school.
As for Scholarship, my article was vetted by outside (the law school) established scholars who found the article timely and up to the standards of what is required for promotion at their institutions. A careful reading of the draft article shows that it not only discusses the privatization of prisons but the implications of this movement from the perspective of two primary schools of legal thought, Natural Law and Positivism. I am committed to its publication which will happen.
As to my private and personal affairs, anyone such as anonymous who would juxtapose “marriage” and “loose morals” in the same description and launch as unprincipled, unsupported and unsupportable attack from behind a screen of anonymity is saying more about his or her character and judgment than he or she could ever say about me.
Finally with regard to the attacks on my personal (noted above) and professional reputations (“…play[ing] favorites with grades []”, to anonymous I make a promise which is to teach you several of the best LEGAL lessons you will ever get. This will include revealing your identity and holding you accountable for what you have written. That’s the next phase of my response.
It's getting serious....
ReplyDeletePlease, they still talk about Jesus. Doesn't mean that personal observation is completely wrong. You can't please everyone, but I'm sure that there is something that you can do, like kill 'em with kindness. Now, back to how we're going to get the University on beyond Cvb nad her trustees. They're obviously not our trustees.
ReplyDeleteJust a little note for all of you bloggers who feel it's cool to bash the faculty and the school....IT DOESN'T HELP YOU IN THE LONG RUN!
ReplyDeleteYou all will soon be graduating and will need jobs. NEWS FLASH!!!! If the school has a bad reputation, because of your childish antics, so do you!
Take it from me, a former FAMU COL student, it's not easy out here.
STOP BASHING FAMU PLEASE!!!!
STOP BASHING FAMU PLEASE!!!!
ReplyDeleteWhile I think that some posters have gone overboard (especially the posters who are delving into the personal lives of COL professors), it is necessary to have a frank, public discussion about the serious management problems that FAMU is experiencing.
We have to make sure that gubernatorial candidates understand that FAMU is in the midst of a leadership crisis and that sweeping trustee changes are needed. If we don't make noise about these issues in public, then the media and political candidates will continue to believe the spin that comes out of Lee Hall.
We have to peel away the paint that Castell Bryant and her cronies are using to whitewash their misdeeds and reveal the true rotting core of corruption and incompetence that exists inside the interim administration.
You guys are just pathetic to the point it makes me sick. Here you are bashing against these professors when some are you are just lucky enough to make it in this damn school. And never have I seen this message board until now but a comment was left from a student September 30 of last year that really pissed me off. How dare you feel you have the right to talk about someones personal life just because your ass isn't getting the grade you THINK you deserve. Shontell English needs no helping hand and no "favorites" with grades because she has done everything important to her life for the last 15 years, how do I know that? Because I been there threw the hardships with her. Instead of complaining of what you think is the problem with someone else why don't you open your own eyes and see the problem with you. And I will not be a COWARD like the rest of you and I will let people know who wrote this comment. I am Wynesha James, A High school student at Winter Park,and the daughter of Shontell English.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why so many people are hating on Professor Langston. She's an engaging, intelligent professor who I feel genuinely cares about her students. And about the pedicure thing... Are you serious? If you're in law school, i suggest you transfer to cosmetology school because you seem awfully concerned with other women's feet.
ReplyDeleteLangston engaging? On what parallel universe are you living? She got her job at the COL because her baby's daddy was the dean! She never practiced law & word on the street is that she cheated at NCCU (managed to get the exams from her secretary friends). She is a typist (her grammar deficiency makes her questionable as a secretary) who got the hook up from her mens friends.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, work on your sentence structure and use of parenthesis. Your writing is what seems like its from a parallel universe. Grammar deficiency? I think its your writing thats a little deficient. It lacks coherence. Word on the street? Way to research! That will serve you well as an attorney...at a temporary staffing firm. Her baby's daddy got her job? And what? I'd like to see you get ahead in this world without a little help from your friends, baby's daddy, or whoever.
ReplyDeleteSo, Prof. Bullock's grossly unqualified hubbie collects a check for what? Yes folks, he opens up the office then takes off for a breakfast feed and when he returns what does he do but fuck up everything he puts his fat mits on. No wonder she is doin Henslee. But meanwhile she has the gaul to attack other people for their qualifications, are you kidding me? Is she not at least embarrassed by his mere presence? What about us - shouldn't we be paying a little attention to who is literally raping this place? Oh, and please "Prof." Bullock don't drop one of your little secret postings here as if there is a student in this law school who has any respect for you! Find another job for your squeeze.
ReplyDelete