Randy Geller hires a competent lawyer

to defend UO against the Emeldi lawsuit, and try and take it to the SCOTUS. Seems like a good idea, and it’s not Frohnmayer or Rudnick. Diane Dietz RG has the story in the RG. Bio here. 1/21/2013.

In other UO legal news, Randy’s website is down. Last time this happened it involved his GC Emerita Melinda Grier, and an apology to the Oregon DOJ.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Randy Geller hires a competent lawyer

  1. Anonymous says:

    There goes Randy cleaning up the faculty’s messes again!

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • UO Matters says:

      I’m not saying he wouldn’t make a competent janitor.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. Anonymous says:

    Can anyone imagine the cost of this endeavor? I understand that SCOTUS accepts only 1 percent of appeals. To spend a fortune on such a long short in lieu of a settlement that would give the woman a honest chance to complete her PhD seems a bit unproductive.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • UO Matters says:

      It will be a precedent setting case. Gottfredson is doing the right thing to try and get a definitive ruling, rather than let the circuit court decision stand. What are the legal obligations between a PhD advisor and a student? It will be expensive to find out, but probably not as much money as Chip and Willie have already cost us. And maybe almost as important.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Anonymous says:

      Let us be completely honest regarding handling of PhD students. We do not typically have regular written appraisal by the appropriate supervising committees. The adviser should not be the committee chair so as to ensure that a 3rd party has a responsibility to supervise the adviser-student interaction, to document it, and to intervene as necessary to uphold academic standards AND professional accountability. Accepting students to a PhD program is a major responsibility. At UO that responsibility tends to be treated a bit cavalierly. Checks and balances are not in place. If clear written records of the responsible committee had been in place, the suit would likely never have been filed. The student’s inability to find an adviser after a conflict with a prior one does reek of potential retaliation which could only be dispelled with clear records of prior insufficiency. On reading the “facts” presented in Mr. Kayal’s brief to the Supreme Court, it is clear that the student’s failings were not documented so as to demonstrate the reasonableness of the adviser’s and the school’s actions.

      Responsibility and accountability apply even in academia. We are paying for the lax standards operative here.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Anonymous says:

      Oh my yes, we must have a precedent setting case! Money is no object. We must protect our faculty right to be irresponsible and unaccountable.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>