Literally, there’s something new in this Felner story every day. Now, thanks to the magic of court records on the internets, we discover that Robert Felner potentially retaliated against colleagues who wrote stories critical of one of Felner’s projects.
See the court records for yourself:
In September 1991, Mitchell published several articles in Ground Level Critique critical of another community-based research project at the University, the “New North Project,” headed by psychology Professor Robert Felner. Five months later, Rappaport decided to terminate the funding for Oasis Graphics Arts. Rappaport cited severe budgetary constraints, the deteriorating physical facility, and the program’s failure as a training ground for graduate students as reasons for terminating the program’s funding. Donchin approved the termination. Mitchell was informed that the funding for Oasis Graphics Arts was being terminated on March 2, 1992. The funding was actually terminated, and Mitchell’s position eliminated, in mid-1993.
On February 22, 1994, Mitchell filed a four-count complaint against several University of Illinois administrators and professors, not including Donchin and Rappaport. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, Mitchell alleged that the defendants violated his First Amendment rights by terminating the funding for Oasis Graphics Arts in retaliation for publishing articles in the Ground Level Critique critical of the New North Project and Felner. Mitchell supported his complaint with statements allegedly made to him by Rappaport that indicated that the named defendants were behind the decision to terminate the funding for Oasis Graphics Arts. Specifically, Mitchell alleged that Rappaport stated that he had strongly opposed terminating the funding for Oasis Graphics Arts, but that he had been overruled by the defendants. Mitchell further alleged that Rappaport told him that “it was that f….. Felner that’s behind this. I know it is Bob Felner that caused this to happen.”
-SNIP-
Rappaport told Mitchell that other people had made the decision to terminate the funding for Oasis Graphics Arts and that he thought that Felner was the motivating force behind the decision.
See that, mainstream media? That’s the kind of material you dig up when you try. Material that, when compiled with hundreds of other pieces of information, paint a complete picture.
6 responses so far ↓
1 WC // Jul 1, 2008 at 6:39 pm
So Jake, what IS C-J’s excuse? Do they think they are above printing “f—— Felner”? Afraid of offending UofL? Nah…they’ve done that! Afraid of offending McConnell? Nah, they’ve done that… Afriad of a little work?
2 John Doe // Jul 1, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Many in the mainstream media would at least try to summarize the document fairly, accurately and completely. You don’t mention that the court ruled against the plaintiff who made the allegation. Immediately after the damning quote about Felner you cite, the court writes:
> On November 16, 1998, Mitchell deposed Rappaport in connection with his February 22, 1994 complaint. During this deposition, Mitchell learned that, in fact, Rappaport himself had made the decision, in conjunction with the approval of Donchin, to terminate the funding for Oasis Graphics Arts.
“Rappaport himself had made the decision.” In other words, it WASN’T Felner. Another clue, in case you missed it, is that Felner wasn’t named as a defendant.
See that, blogger? That’s what happens when you try.
3 jake // Jul 1, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Yeah, threw it out because they waited longer than two years to file suit. Not because they claim didn’t have merit.
And that court doc doesn’t prove Felner didn’t have anything to do with anything. If you’ve followed the Felner saga, you’d recognize just how common that sort of thing is for Felner.
4 John Doe // Jul 1, 2008 at 10:00 pm
You cited the quote in a damning way about Felner, without mentioning that the plaintiff himself found out when he deposed one of the defendant’s under oath that Felner in fact wasn’t involved. That’s just crappy, misleading journalism, period.
“Not because the claim didn’t have merit.” So you have decided it has merit, courts be damned, because it fits the conclusions you have already jumped to about Felner?
5 jake // Jul 1, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Oh please, who ever claimed we were journalists who were fair and balanced in the Fox News sense?
Uh, the suit was tossed because it was filed beyond the two-year statute of limitations– NOT because it didn’t have merit.
Keep assuming that we’ve already reached conclusions. And keep making retarded ass anonymous comments. Drives up pageviews and dollars.
6 Observer // Jul 6, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Well, it would have been nice to hear the disposition of the case, for whatever reason. However, the complaint sounds much like the usual disgruntled ex-employee type of thing where no one can really tell what has happened. People who lose their jobs can engage in paranoid fanatasies about why they were singled out–even if they know about huge budget cuts or what the process was. In my experience, such stories are valid maybe 10% of the time… or BOTH the employer and employee are somewhat unbalanced.
In this case, if Professor Rappaport said that he made the decision, I would be inclined to believe him, given that Felner was unpopular and about to be bumped from his own job shortly (as other entries show). Why lie for him?
Leave a Comment