peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (05/27/84)
[meta-shift-!] One aspect of the anti-Maroney articles that surprised me a lot was the incredible toadying to authority. "Insubordination!" they cry... "He broke his agreement!" Are we not obliged to object to unfair conditions? Actually, I am sure that many of the apparent pro-authority posters are not this way at all. If the authority were the Polish or Russian government, I'd wager that they'd even consider assassination fair play. But perhaps some really do believe that we are here to be led. This is mostly out of fashion these days, being given a bad name by WW II. Sadly, it is making a comeback via religion, through the fanatical cults and fanatical theocracies (e.g. Iran). Let us be aware that following a leader means that you are acting in *their* self-interest. ---- As a practical matter of inter-personal communications, the Maroney letters showed the dangers of relying on electronic mail too much. It was too easy for the UNC faculty involved, as busy as they were, to give quick answers subject to misinterpretation (the payroll issue comes to mind). There *are* advantages to talking in person when you must be sure of what someone means to say, or if you are competing for their attention with many other interests. p. rowley, U. Toronto
peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (06/01/84)
Thanks to those people who replied to my two articles on the story related in Tim Maroney's postings. I'd like to clarify my articles somewhat. Firstly, someone at UNC reminded me that only certain CS faculty were involved in the decisions reported on, not all UNC faculty. This is a point that is very well taken; please consider all references to "UNC" in my articles to refer only to those faculty involved. Note, though, that I still hesitate in accepting the Maroney postings as a complete record of what happened-- the point of my articles was to comment on a *mythical* situation which may well be a good precedent. How close that situation is to reality is questionable without hearing from the UNC faculty involved. Secondly, I've been admonished for equating respect for a contract with blind following of authority. I perhaps stated my case too strongly. My feelings arose from TCWheeler's comments about "the blatant disregard for the edicts of my employer, be they good or bad" and similar comments by others, indicating a willingness to do almost anything as long as it is ordered by someone in authority. I was very startled by this; it really is a dangerous thing. But I did not mean that one should break contracts capriciously. As a matter of tactics, if one wants to challenge an employment condition in the courts, breaking the condition, being fired, and then taking the firing to court would seem to be the way to do it. This is clearly not undertaken lightly. Note that the relationship between my comments on following authority and Tim's case are very indirect-- my comments were directed to some attitudes exhibited in other articles discussing the case (esp. TCWheeler's). Trying to guess the legalities of Tim's actions with respect to his employment contract, when we don't even have a copy of what he signed, is pretty much a loser's game, I'd think. p. rowley, U. Toronto