crintigger

Sun, Nov 29, 2009 : 5:35 p.m.

Notice the lies in UM's attorney's judicial/court response to Borisov's allegations. Despite the FACT that a duly constituted jury found Borisov innocent of all wrongdoing, we find that UM's attorneys are still claiming Borisov is guilty. "The response maintains Borisov was arrested because of assaultive behavior with U-M Department of Public Safety officers." Apparently, we should all not bother to waste our time sitting on juries any more. We can just ask the UM's attorneys for the truth.

crintigger

Sun, Nov 29, 2009 : 5:31 p.m.

It's fascinating to notice the difference between UM's use of it's campus police and that of other major universities around the country. Look at UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz, UCLA, for examples. Recently, students took over buildings on these campuses and occupied some of these for days. Almost all of these students were simple allowed to return to class after these protests. Trespass statutes were written for dramatic cases like this and even in these cases, most universities are very reluctant to use these against members of the campus community. UM's campus police appear to be the administration's private army, unregulated by the DPS Oversight Committee, as was required by State of Michigan law. This private army is used to threaten and harass students and faculty, who the administration deems inconvenient for some reason. Again, the corruption in the UM's administration is clearly visible to anyone with two eyes and the Regents couldn't care less. The Regents are elected to represent the people of the State of Michigan, not to protect the illegal activities of the UM administration and Assistant Professors, who think stealing their way to tenure is the way to go. When is the public going to have enough of this illegal behavior? How many lawsuits have to be filed against UM, how much money has to be spent defending the illegal conduct of UM faculty and administration, before the public votes in new Regents, who actually do their jobs and clean house? Where is the accountability to the Michigan taxpayers for wasting all this money on lawsuit after lawsuit? Clearly the Regents are asleep at the wheel.

pu2um

Sun, Nov 29, 2009 : 2:55 p.m.

@Mr.DB, I share your concern. Trials are not won or lost on facts alone. Juries have a propensity to find on behalf of universities not only because of employment issues, but blind faith that they abide by their mission: the pursuit of truth. Few attorneys are equal to the legal team assembled by the UM, which enjoys unlimited tax dollars to defend itself, compared to plaintiffs who struggle to pay their legal bills. As recently evidenced by the McGee case (alluded to in your post), by trial time the UM has marshaled its witnesses to support its defense. How the jury believed that Miklos (Radiation Safety Services) could permit Hartman to enter Prof. Kearfott's lab without her direct knowledge or consent and without a key, by dislodging a cinder block to open the door, is beyond my comprehension. If Hartman really had Kearfott's permission, why was she so angry to learn of the clandestine entry? And to point out the obvious, when a jury finds against a public university, which is a state institution, it is finding against the tax payers.

essene

Sun, Nov 29, 2009 : 12:42 p.m.

All, I already have said too much. Try essene@umich.edu if you wish.

pu2um

Sun, Nov 29, 2009 : 12:25 p.m.

@essene, I relied on annarbor.com's reporting of Dr. Borisov's acquittal in the criminal trial, and my knowledge of Michigan's penal code and the UM's policy in regard to the issuance of trespass warnings. Whom did you rely on?

trespass

Sun, Nov 29, 2009 : 12:09 p.m.

@ essene Now you are just making up facts. I have listened to the entire audio recording of Dr. Borisov's meeting and arrest and I assure you he never shouted "at the police rudely". Were you there? Did you listed to the audio recording? Then don't make up facts. Dr. Borisov's rights were violated by the police long before his arrest. First, no police officer should ask a faculty member to sign a letter of resignation. It is inherently coercive and particulary in this instance, since it followed intense coercion by others. Second, the officers told Dr. Borisov that they planned to read him the trespass warning before he even left Dr. Castle's office. Therefore, it was pre-planned and had nothing to do with anything that happened in Dr. Borisov's office.

trespass

Sun, Nov 29, 2009 : noon

@essene You are probably not aware that the University uses a different definition of plagiarism with students than with faculty. Their definition changes with the circumstances. Standard Practice Guide 303.3, which deals with misconduct in scholarship and research, defines plagiarism as; Plagiarism: taking credit for someone elses work or ideas, stealing others results or methods, copying the writing of others without proper acknowledgment, or otherwise falsely taking credit for the work or ideas of another. With regard to Dr. Borisov's complaint of plagiarism the Vice President for Research, Sthephen Forest, says that the University interprets this to mean the same thing as the definition of plagiarism given by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). The ORI definition is as follows; As a general working definition, ORI considers plagiarism to include both the theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work. It does not include authorship or credit disputes. Thus the ORI specifically excludes cases where one faculty claims sole credit for writings that were produced by another. However, the plain text of SPG 303.3 would include taking credit for the work of another. Thus, the University's claim that the two definitions are the same is absurd (The emperor has no clothes). I wonder if the student would have prevailed in your case if the ORI definition were used?

essene

Sun, Nov 29, 2009 : 11:38 a.m.

Put2um You and Borisov only claim that the police violated his rights, but others disagree. Were you a witness to these events? If not, are you relying on hearsay? One's first right with police is to shut up and politely respond only when they ask questions. After they are finished you may or may not be permitted to politely provide additional input. It is NOT your constitutional right to shout at them rudely. Not all law is written in the constitution. There are easy ways to confirm this should you not take my word for it. As a longtime hitchhiker of many years ago, I learnt one's rights pretty quickly. For some it takes an entire lifetime or longer. For your information, exactly the same rules apply in court with the judge and as a witness. It seems likely that Borisov was causing trouble and behaving irrationally. The best response was to write up a misdemeaner charge, observe him in a quiet spot for a few hours downtown, release him barring a hearing, and quietly let the charges slide at the hearing if Borisov isn't too rude again. 20:20 hindsight is perfect, but not everyone sees it that way. We are talking about comparing two civil cases, and state law protecting UM professors stands. I will rely on AA.com to impartially report the trial, what will you do? Eric

trespass

Sun, Nov 29, 2009 : 11:34 a.m.

@essene Imagine if your chairman suddenly told you that he heard that someone in your department felt threatened by you and you know that the story is totally fabricated. Your chairman introduces you to two police officer, who hand you a letter of resignation and ask you to sign it. Whether you sign it or not, these police officers will escort you to your office, you will only be allowed to take your cell phone and wallet and you will be read a trespass warning and barred from ever returning to campus or even communicating with any staff or faculty of your school. Then, when you try to show the officers that you only want to take your son's college financial aid documents, medical records and a book chapter you are working on, they throw you up against a wall and arrest you (It is all on audio tape). Your tenure doesn't matter (some cases have involved tenured full professors or clinical professors in the middle of their term contracts). Although, Dr. Borisov was not tenured he was a 15 year employee in the middle of his term contract. In this scenario, don't you think that your chairman, who made up the story and those who conspired with him did something legally wrong?

pu2um

Sun, Nov 29, 2009 : 10:22 a.m.

@essene, Are you equating the circumstances of a student who plagiarized, received due process and failed, to a faculty who received a trespass citation and arrested, without due process? Hopefully, your interest is piqued enough to take time to attend the trial to hear the evidence for yourself.

Mr. DB

Sat, Nov 28, 2009 : 9:21 p.m.

Want a fair trial? Take the case out of Washtenaw. Too many people in Washtenaw have some kind of affiliation with the university. But then again, the whole state is banking on UM for a revival. My apologies in advance for your loss of the case. But two whistleblower cases in a span of 30 days is definitely something.

essene

Sat, Nov 28, 2009 : 7:17 p.m.

It seems that "trespass" might be Borisov's brother. No one should have been charged criminally, but Borisov is not so obvious a victim as is implied by his statements. What is the evidence that anything occurred worthy of that defense? Nothing so far. Some persons are named to be sure, but nothing supporting even a civil suit is described beyond implausible and vague accounts. It is very difficult to sue UM professors because they are protected in the state constitution. Several of us in Geology as well as the University itself were sued by a student who had lost to the university in a formal hearing over plagiarism. The case against the professors was immediately discarded and the final ruling also went against the student, despite his claim that his MSc belonged to him regardless of any possible plagiarism. I predict that this case too will go nowhere, furthermore that no damages will be awarded to anyone. Eric J. Essene, essene@umich.edu

trespass

Sat, Nov 28, 2009 : 7:13 p.m.

@in4mation I am not directly involved in this case but I have been closely following this and several similar cases at UM (e.g. I attended Dr. Borisov's criminal trial). I have been lobbying the Board of Regents to act to put a stop to this tactic. If the University would just deal fairly with grievances instead of using its power to crush those who complain, the taxpayers would be spending a lot less on legal fees and fewer careers would be crushed.

trespass

Sat, Nov 28, 2009 : 3:16 p.m.

The following paragraph is critical in understanding how the University uses false allegations of threatening behavior to punish whistleblowers, remove them from campus and prevent them from communicating with others regarding their complaints. "The chair of his department was concerned about reports that Borisov was following people to their cars in the parking lot and other "unusual, erratic and sometimes frantic behaviors," according to the response. The chair was concerned for the safety of faculty and staff, the response states, which is why campus police officers were present at the Sept. 4 meeting. Borisov's suit denies those behaviors" At the Sept. 4, 2008 meeting the only person that Dr. Castle alleged that Dr. Borisov followed to his car was Dr. Russell (the whole meeting is documented by an audio recording). In the Universities reply brief, Dr. Castle "denies that she stated that plaintiff had threatened physical harm to Dr. Russell or other faculty and staff". Dr. Russell described the incident but stated Dr. Russell "did not characterize this as threatening behavior by Borisov". This is inconsistent with Dr. Castle's action, which was to request that the Campus Police escort Dr. Borisov to his office, read him a trespass warning, and bar him from campus. This was all done while Dr. Borisov was still a UM faculty member. The Dept of Public Safety (DPS) procedure for trespass warnings states the following "Because of their requirements to be on campus, unless extenuating circumstances exist (i.e., poses an immediate threat to the safety of others), University students, faculty and staff members should not be issued the trespass warning". Thus, it is inherent in the request to read a faculty member a trespass warning that the person making the request is alleging that the faculty member "poses an immediate threat to the safety of others". Such false allegations that faculty, students or staff have been threatening and using the campus police to issue a trespass warning has been a recurrent pattern with whistleblowers and other inconvenient persons at the University. The DPS also failed to document the request by Dr. Castle to read Dr. Borisov the trespass warning and they did no investigation beyond talking to Dr. Castle. Dr. Borisov recieved a letter 4 days later that said that he could not be rehired at the University (despite his job offer from another department) and that he was "not to contact Medical School staff or faculty for any reason". This communication ban obstructed Dr. Borisov's efforts to pursue his whistleblower complaint and prevented him from pursuing due process procedures. The arrest and the order not to rehire Dr. Borisov would not have happened if the officers had not read Dr. Borisov the trespass warning, which was against their own departmental policy. The DPS Oversight Committee should review this pattern of abuse of the trespass warning by the campus police and they should require a procedure that protects the rights of those falsely accused.