I guess I can see the Title IX argument. We seem to love us some Mid-Major hires though. Regardless of the "why", public humiliation of an employee was very bizarre and unprofessional, imo.
No, but what in recent history makes you think they’d pick a good one I also wonder if word doesn’t get out on these sorts of things and put limits on you
I tend to agree. I mean, I don’t know all the what-fors, but the letter was excessive and unnecessary imo
Most places will go overboard in covering their asses on firing of this level. I'm sure they made sure all things outlined in the letter are well documented through the process leading up to her being terminated. The sad part of it is these letters not meant for public release. I would think there would be some sort of protection from this getting out but apparently not.
No, they decided they were hiring a woman. Beverly Davenport's resume was the first one they came across.
If the woman is the best person for the position, then hire her. But if you say you are going to hire a woman as a reactionary PR move, odds are the best will be offended, not want it, and you will pass over better qualified guys, as some said they did. You wind up with a woman who was as qualified to run the Knoxville campus as Dooley was the football team.
And then was fired for actually ending an embarrassing sequence of events caused by the meddling of a prominent booster. We are burying the lead by focusing on how she got hired and not why she was fired.
1. She was never qualified anyway. 2. Agree or disagree she made decisions directly against desires of her bosses....many times. 3. They could have probably ended her career if they really felt like it.
Looks like if you're going to go as personal as they did in the dismissal letter, you'd make sure the personnel file wasn't sunshine and rainbows.
It undermines not just the letter, but the entire narrative of her. At best, UT is completely oncompetent. That's at best. They're lucky Bev doesn't sue.
