Meanwhile, the unethical events and unprofessional actions described in my original and supplementary filings (and other unethical and unprofessional events and actions I didn't have space to mention) have continued unabated, uncorrected, and (as far as I can tell) completely unacknowledged by Boston University administrators at any level. Only a few months ago, in fact, when I raised the subject in a meeting chaired by my Dean, he (Tom Fiedler), my Chairman (Paul Schneider), and a member of the University Office of General Counsel (Erika Geetter) ridiculed my reports and told me that the things I had reported had never actually happened. As an illustration of the respect with which I am long accustomed to being treated by Dean Fiedler and Chairman Schneider, I was actually told to my face that I was mentally ill to have said the things I had--or, it was implied, was simply lying. So much for collegial respect at Boston University. So much for taking reports of unethical behavior seriously.
The disrespect, the mockery, the implied accusation that I was a liar--if I wasn't simply out of my mind--didn't really surprise me. Boston University faculty are used to those kinds of responses from administrators. If you don't have a reply for something, you can call someone a name or attack their character and morals (or mental state), or treat them so abusively that they will quit in discouragement and disgust. (For interested readers, I have more than you ever want to know on this subject on two other site pages: "Censorship, Punishment, Abuse, Threats—Being Banned in Boston" and "How (Not) to Conduct a Meeting—Shouts, Name-Calling, Personal Attacks, Threats, Punishments.") There was more than thirty years of that kind of treatment of faculty during Silber's presidency, and the administrative and legal staff Silber assembled did his anti-faculty bidding without protest and turned a blind eye to the abuses of academic freedom he perpetrated for more than three decades. They functioned as good soldiers all, and the carry-overs from that era (of whom there are many, including on the Boston University legal staff) continue to be good soldiers for the cause--however antithetical to faculty rights the cause may be. So the sarcasm and nastiness and general indifference to ethical issues by my Dean, my Chairman, and the representative from the University Office of General Counsel didn't catch me off guard, but I have to say that the "it never happened" defense did--because it flies in the face of so many provable facts. Head-in-the-sand denial is a preposterous choice as a university defense since so much of the misconduct I (and other faculty members) have experienced has had so many witnesses. Many other faculty members have been present at the meetings where I have been yelled at, verbally abused, had my publications threatened with being censored, and been told that the university would attempt to destroy my professional reputation by making a formal posting against me on the official Boston University web site. And the secret and surreptitious meetings held by my Dean and other individuals in my College to make false and slanderous statements about me to students involved large numbers of students, any one of whom can verify that the "abuse Carney to his students" sessions took place. There are dozens of people who saw all of these things happen. Beyond that, many of the events I have reported are documented in writing--like the motion passed to force me to take down my web site, or the memos from my Dean verifying his reading, without my knowledge or permission, of emails I wrote to my students, his distribution of other emails by me that he was not given permission to read to other individuals, and the de facto censorship of his angry (and obscene) written excoriations of me, on more than one occasion, for having written things he did not approve of or for submitting reports he did not agree with, accompanied with explicit threats about the negative impact my expression of my views would have on my pay and position. I alluded to these facts at the meeting, but according to my Dean, my Chairman, and the University Counsel, I was simply making it all up. It was mental illness. That was their story and they were sticking to it. All of those other people who had been present must have been subject to a mass delusion; and the threatening, nasty emails and memos my Dean sent forbidding me to tell my students certain things or warning me about the negative consequences of my reports on my position must have been forgeries. Who is the mentally ill one in this picture? Answer: Any senior university administrator who falls for a present or past College of Communication administrator's explanations of what really took place.
Near the end of the long narrative account I gave Professor Sandell and Ms. Montemurro, I listed, in extreme summary form, a number of the basic academic issues at stake and a few of the fundamental principles of academic conduct that have been egregiously violated by Boston University administrators (many of which continue to be violated at present). That list appears below in a lightly rewritten and updated version that includes several (but not all) of the events of the past three years. For anyone who has spent his life in academia, as I have, the list is a shocking one--a genuine academic disgrace. It itemizes dozens of violations of the most fundamental academic principles of free expression and fair treatment. It lists threats that affect the entire academic enterprise. These values are important ones. They are the very qualities that make a university different from other institutions in our society. That is why I am convinced that they are worth fighting for.
Principles of Academic Life That Have Been Violated at Boston University