Interesting. Did you delve deeper into the issue? There is a link in one of the links on TaxProf's page that takes you to the responding letter by the President that gives the other side of the story.
According to him, Ms. Clark was to attend a meeting with himself and the Vice President later the same morning as Ms. Clark's resignation letters. In that meeting, he was going to fire Ms. Clark and already was ready to announce her replacement. The replacement was a lawyer practicing in the St. Louis are and not currently a member of the faculty.
Since he sent his response letter the same day as Ms. Clark's, I doubt he is lying about his side of the story. I mean, you do not get a lawyer to drop his practice and become faculty without time to think it over. The question now, where does the truth in the matter lie? Probably somewhere in the middle.
3 comments:
If there's a kernel of truth in what she wrote, we have a write-in candidate for November.
Read the full letter and if that's the full story she is showing integrity.
Interesting. Did you delve deeper into the issue? There is a link in one of the links on TaxProf's page that takes you to the responding letter by the President that gives the other side of the story.
According to him, Ms. Clark was to attend a meeting with himself and the Vice President later the same morning as Ms. Clark's resignation letters. In that meeting, he was going to fire Ms. Clark and already was ready to announce her replacement. The replacement was a lawyer practicing in the St. Louis are and not currently a member of the faculty.
Since he sent his response letter the same day as Ms. Clark's, I doubt he is lying about his side of the story. I mean, you do not get a lawyer to drop his practice and become faculty without time to think it over. The question now, where does the truth in the matter lie? Probably somewhere in the middle.
Post a Comment