Starting Sunday the Tallahasseee Democrat will begin an eight day intensive look at FAMU that will examine the university's "challenges and opportunities".According to the newspaper's Executive Editor Bob Gabordi, "FAMU has had serious and ongoing financial issues, as evidenced by audits going back several years citing important problems. I t has had problematic leadership, predating but certainly including the Castell Bryant years. Its internal politics have been, to say the least, rough, divisive and mean-spirited."
The Democrat stories are largely the work of new education reporter Jennifer Portman and her editor Ron Hartung.
Gabordi says, (in the Rattler Nation tradition) they (the Democrat) will be posting documents they've obtained from the University (through public records request) online for all to see.
Gabordi promises, in advance, that the series will be fair and that the Democrat has no ax to grind and truly wants to see FAMU do better.
You can take a look at Gabordi's blog here: Stories to take a deep look at FAMU
There are several troubling passages in Mr. Garboldi's blog post which indicate that the Dixiecrat's coverage will be anything but fair.
ReplyDeleteI guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Have you seen any fair and balance articles about FSU or TCC in the Democrat? I think this is a witch hunt with the expressed intention to shed more negative light on FAMU. I think the public has seen enough about FAMU and its financial and administrative problems in the last few years. It's time to let FAMU fix its problems and get to its mission of educating our future leaders. I would like to see positive articles on FAMU, not the same old negative reports. Think positive Rattlers!
ReplyDeleteRon Hartung fair and balance. Sought of like Bush's side of the story about the war in Iraq. Remember the reason we are in Iraq is because of weapons of mass destruction.
ReplyDeleteRN we hope you are preparing to respond for the Rattler Nation.
ReplyDeleteFAMU's has made the mistake of making a bad problem worse by ignoring it. Any person or institution that's ever had problems know that to get ahead you must FESS UP, CLEAN UP and MOUNT UP. You should never be left playing defense. FAMU has been on the defense for years because administration has failed to admit to the real problems, take drastic measures to clean them up by removing the useless folk (instead of moving them around departments and even sending them to the College of Law to display destructive behavior) and taking hard steps to improve the education, environment and ethics on campus.
ReplyDeleteHello 39 million dollars are unaccounted for! FAMU is a joke of an institution. Community Colleges have a better reputation in this state.
ReplyDeleteSurely no one thought that the Democrat was NOT going to run a series of articles about the university before, during and after Ammons comes. With how we've managed our fiscal, administrative and academic affairs lately, we should simply be prepared for the onslaught. (I didn't say "accepting" of the onslaught, I said "prepared") for what the newspaper publishes. It simply comes with the territory of the Tallahassee Democrat being the only major daily in town. We can complain about the coverage all we want, but I guarantee you we will read it, and whether or not we are willing to admit how bad things are, we will silently acknowledge that much of it has come as a result of our own undoing.
ReplyDeleteAnother post on RN bashes one of the top faculty at the COL. I hope the Democrat like the SPTimes blow the cover off the floggin' profs here. Enough already. We've dealt with baby mamas, hoochies w/JDs, and seemingly a brown paper bag test (there are only a handful of profs w/ dark complexions)
ReplyDeleteThis is what was said about a"published" article from the esteemed faculty at the COL, probably the highest paid in the FAMU system. Does anyone care about the ABA? Just look at the title & judge for yourself:
Why Hurricane Katrina's So-Called Looters Were Not Lawless:. They Are Entitled to the Well-Established Defense of Necessity.
What?! Seems as Vickie Dawson ain' the only chick who got her job from personal connections!
This is was a RN comment said about the article--
What a bunch of crap! And the administration at the COL thinks this is PUBLISHING? Check out the comments from a blog that featured this hot mess:
http://jackiedowd.blogspot.com/2005/09/check-out-these-commentaries.html
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:
HOW DO YOU WRITE AN ARTICLE ABOUT A LAW AND DON'T MAKE ANY REFERENCE TO IT?
Oh it gets better. This is another comment on the site. Hope the SPTimes gets a hold of this ...
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.
IN OTHER WORDS El Presedente of the COL hoochie Club of 4 is an ACADEMIC BOOBLEHEAD.
Please hurry Dr. Ammons and get us a real dean who can rid us of this shame!
6/20/2007 1:59 PM
I hope the Democrat uncover this as well as many other "in your face" atrocities at the COL
Can Rattler Nation PLEASE and I mean PPPLLLEEEAAASSSEEEE do an entire blog on that horrible "In Perspective" publication that the school sent to everyone. Please do one so someone can explain why Castell paid former Jeb Bush employee Leslie Steel $25,000 to produce it! $25,000 to a person who was hurting for a check in Tallahassee (because she is so unliked) and called in a republican favor. Can someone find the bid contract. Weren't we so mad at Larry H for doing no bid contracts???? $25,000 to a person who was an assistant to a mayor to produce a FAMU document? What the hell.....CastHell!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThe whole document is full of errors and is misleading. Please RATTLERNATION......lets bring this "In Perspective" into the light.
It should be criminal to give a person not affiliated with putting out publication, $25,000 to do one just because they are a republican! Especially such an unlikable person, whose always acted as if they were to good for FAMU, like Leslie Steel. We should demand to see the bid and contract because of the Sunshine Law.
6:26--What a waste!! Why are you so focused on Langston? I think the bloggers here are getting tired of you repeating the same libels. What is wrong with the title of her article? From the title, it seeems that she is saying that if people are starving, they have a right to "loot" to keep from starving. This seems reasonable to me. What would you do if you were starving? Now mind you, we are all aware that plenty of folks were stealing VCRS, TVs etc... WE all know that after you eat, you need to watch a good movie. (This was a joke) It seems that Academia should be the place where all ideas are discussed. If you think that Langston's ideas are misplaced and devoid of legal research, why don't you write a counter article? It seems to me that is the best way to expose her as a weak legal academician that you seem to think she is and, at the same time, get the credit of a publication.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to think me for the idea, you may do so. But I suspect you will not because you have clearly exposed yourself for what you are: a weak, pathetic human being deficient by quite a few measures. Instead of trying to improve yourself, you take on Langston. By the way, this is not Langston talking. I am not even connected to the law school. I am just tired of insensitive comments not backed up by real analysis. These comments are just designed to hurt.
So, shut up, write your counter article with real legal research and we will compare the two articles. Put your money where your mouth.
One would really think if you love FAMU you'd want it cleaned up.
ReplyDeleteIf they want to be fair then do put other schools problems when they have then in the news paper. Yes FAMU has problems and nobody denying that, however other schools have issues as well and they go largly unreported. But they focus on the smallest issues at FAMU painting us as they only school who has issues and problems and that most certainly is not fair.
ReplyDeleteHello, 39 million is unaccounted for!
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 8:33 PM Truth. I should write a counter article WITH REAL LEGAL RESEARCH. So you agree the article LACKED LEGAL RESEARCH? Aren't LAW profs supposed to have legal research?
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way shouldn't I put my money where your mouth IS? Hone up on the grammar girl.
8:33--Do you have any knowledge of how research is conducted or how a professor and the work that s/he publishes is a reflection, not only of their scholarship (or lack thereof) but the institution they represent? No one is arguing the point of the professor's topic of her so-called "research." What everyone seems to understand besides you, is that the article lacks credibility because the writing is not research-based and does not make reference to existing research and/or scholarship about the topic on which she writes. Do you understand that research and scholarly articles must be grounded in support of your argument by facts? You simply do not present an article for publication w/o the engaging the basic and necessary facts of support for your argument/thesis. No one wants to hear a person's opinion unless they have the necessary scholarly facts to back up what they assert. Plain as that. In the case of this Lundy woman, she did not offer any substance of facts; she simply wrote an opinion piece and passed it off as scholarship.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 8:33 PM I'm glad to see that you paid attention in Torts. I have no problem w/ scatterbrained ideas. If a prof decides to share his/her thoughts w/the world then he/she should do adequate research and make logical analysis of what they find. She wrote the article sounding like she was the authority on criminal law, but obviously she never even researched her opinionated position. No counter article is necessary because that crap is "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.
ReplyDeleteAll of Langston's articles are crappy. Her titles sound like her class lectures which are ramblings and much to do about nothing used to cover-up her ignorance. What about her citation of JET magazine in the symposium paper? Did she fall asleep in legal research as a 1L? JET always cites its primary source in its articles. What about all of the hype about the "teaching experience" at the University of Bejing? Come on you know that she paid a couple of thousand dollars to go there in a Eisenhower's "pay to be in an exchange program". AND IT'S 2007 & nothing but a handful of symposium papers written in the 90s? She's like a "dirty little secret" that each COL administration has managed to keep under wrap. BUT NOW THE COVERS ARE OFF! COL deserves better.
I just knew my idea of a counter article would not be taken up. Why? It's obvious. You do not have the skills to get it done. I google that Lundy person and I found out that she was a full professor at Nova, got some kind of degree from Columbia. Pretty good. Maybe she fell through the cracks but not many people (especially Blacks) make it to full professor status in a white school without having some kind of skills. Your comments sound good but they are just that--comments. Anybody can comment about any piece of writing. Shakespeare, you say, he sucks--To be or not to be, well that is just silly, it is a fragment etc...You are just stating your opinion. Be productive, write better articles than Lundy and really show her up. Otherwise, you are wasting computer bytes. Let's keep the blog space reserved for discussions of real issues that we face.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, we have a lot of folks out there who contribute nothing but negativity. They are bringing FAMU down, we do not need them.
"Maybe she fell through the cracks but not many people (especially Blacks) make it to full professor status in a white school without having some kind of skills."
ReplyDeleteOR A FEDERAL CONSENT DECREE. Everybody who has taught law school knows that in the early '90s many law schools were under consent decrees to diversify faculty. So if you were a woman or minority in the 90s then you hit paydirt if you were looking for a job at a law school. Langston was at the right place at the right time. Nova was under a consent decree to increase the diversity of its faculty. They cut her a deal to make her full prof in a short amount of time in exchange for her staying put at Nova. But she broke the contract to follow her baby daddy to FAMU (anyone knows why she left Tulsa in a jam?)She was still on leave from Nova while she was at FAMU getting a big fat check. Nova knows all about her messy background & called her to carpet several times. No panel discussions, syposiums, publications, just a talk to a Brownie troop & "attendance" wherever her baby daddy went to work. Why is it that she never made a name for herself all these years? Langston is an absentee in the legal community. And that Columbia degree (she got the hook up there,too, from NCCUs former dean & her former boss) has anyone checked her transcript? Word is that she dropped many classes & replaced them w/ independent studies.
SLIPPED THROUGH THE CRACKS? That chick doesn't have an academic bone in her body. FAMU deserves better than a bunch of hoochies w/JDs who clearly have no other agenda but to keep "getting kept." Come on girls we're over 50. Your wisdom & intelligence should be on blast!
The Democrat should take note from Palm Bch and put this and mess like this on the front page for all the world to see.
Anon @ 8:16 AM
ReplyDelete"Your comments sound good but they are just that--comments."
WE ARE ON A BLOG AREN'T WE?
Your "protectionistic" tendencies of Langston are giving you away. Now who could that be? Could I get an answer from the COL? Who is this anonymous being who is attempting to convince us that Langston belongs in academia & not hunched over a keyboard as a secretary which is really where her skill level reside. Put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig. Put the letters "JD, LLM, ABC" behind the name of a hoochie baby mama and she still is a hoochie baby mama.
Hey 8:16 who said, "Anybody can comment about any piece of writing. Shakespeare, you say, he sucks--To be or not to be, well that is just silly, it is a fragment etc."
ReplyDeleteThere is lexicon, and there is grammar: rules for use, and exceptions to the rules.
LANGSTON IS NO SHAKESPEARE! My grade school teacher said that sentence fragments are incomplete thoughts masquerading as complete ones.... We were discouraged from the mere use of lexiconic babblings b/c to know words without knowledge of the grammar rules causes the user to create only nonsense. Her writings are unintelligible chaotic babblings. Entropic at best.
This is my opinion & it is backed by objective facts. So what do you say about grammar rules governing redundancy/repetition? What do you think about Langston's op ed. piece that (sadly for FAMU) appeared in the ORL Sentinel newspaper. Check out how many times she uses the words COLONIZERS, COLONIZE or some variation thereof.
African nations became, under colonization (number 1), nations existing to serve the needs of the colonizers (number 2). The lands were harvested to serve the customs of the colonizers (number 3), clothing designed to function within their (the colonizers')(number 4) morals, and machinery to serve the colonizer's (number 5) needs. When the colonizers (number 6) packed up and left, for those who did leave (unlike in South Africa -- where the diamonds were deemed more valuable than complying with the international community's pressure to end colonization)(number 7)
What? Vickie D ain' the only one who didn't pay attention in grammar class. Has she ever heard of a thesaurus? Ever hear of the context sensitive rule? Langston proudly shoots off at the mouth about her days as Editor of her law school's Law Review. Wonder how that happpened? Another baby daddy hookup? FAMU deserves better.
She gets a 6 figure salary over $130,000. Why not sign up for some adult ed. grammar class at Jones or something?
If the men and women writing in this blog are the future of black legal representation in Florida, then Florida is going to be a-okay! I am very impressed with the logical arguments, and the passion, behind the arguments. Your profs might have missed out on rhetoric, grammer, and legal analysis, but you guys are da bomb!
ReplyDeleteSince you all seem to be receiving inferior legal educations due to your professor's inadequacies, I don't suppose there is any point in hiring graduates from your law school for my Orlando-area criminal defense firm; I shall look elsewhere. Thank you for helping to narrow my choices.
ReplyDeleteFunny, I recall that Lundy Langston was an outstanding professor when I booked her class in the 90's at Nova. Her perceived lack of scholarship certainly didn't negatively affect my education (I passed the bar the *first* time, unlike some attorneys I know, including our Governor) and it hasn't hurt my career, either. I see many former classmates in court on a regular basis and they all seem to be equally successful. Perhaps her "downfall" is the result of moving to school that accepts applicants who wouldn't have made the cutoff at her previous institutions. You lie down with dogs...