11 March 1997
From George R Garrison
To Joseph H. Danks
Re: Your memo to me of 21 January 1997
Thank you for the copy of the letter, dated 16 December 1996, signed by Francis Dorsey, Jacqueline Rowser, Diedre [sic] Badejo and Mwatabu Okantah, which calls for an Extraordinary Review of my administration of this Department. My first impulse was to respond immediately to the outrageous and baseless charges in that letter. However, upon reflection it seemed that the best thing to do was to allow some time to past, so that I might think more clearly about this mean spirited and malicious act on the part of these individuals. At this point in time, I do not feel the necessity to answer all of the allegations that are laid forth in that document. I am sure that as the process unfolds, there will be ample time for me to reply to those accusations. Suffice it to say, at this point, that I categorically deny all of those charges; they are without foundation, and their request makes a mockery of the rules, regulations, policies and procedures of this institution. The letter of 16 December 1996, is part of an elaborate, calculated and complex plan, in an attempt to replace me as Chair of this Department.
It is impossible to ignore the fact that three of the four disgruntled dissidents of the letter in question, have been full time faculty members in this Department, less than one year. In that short period of time, they would ask that some objective body of reviewers believe, that they have witnessed all of the assertions contained within that letter. To the contrary, it is clear to me, that at least part of the motivation for this act of naked aggression, is to be found in the obvious — blind ambition. It is evident from the charges that none of them have taken the time to inquire into my background relative to past administrative experience, my knowledge of and involvement in our field of studies, etc; and they have paid little to no attention to my vision and goals for this Department. Some of the charges are simply fabrications, distortions and intentionally misleading. Others are exaggerations. Some parts of the letter are difficult to follow. In those, it is not at all clear, just what is being alleged.
If you would like for me to address the allegations in that letter now, or at anytime during the review process, please let me know. I will be happy to do so. I assume that the process will unfold as it is outlined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. If there are any changes or modifications from that procedure, kindly let me know. Please keep me informed as this matter proceeds.
c Dr. Myron S. Henry, Provost