> Tom says:
>
> >
> >Although we don't exactly know what he taught in class, we _can_ discuss
> >whether the supposed issues are okay for the class in question. I think
> >this ends up to be the real issue of this whole discussion anyway, not
> >whether Kenyon should have been removed from teaching his class. I think
> >this a good discussion point for the reflector. As far as I'm concerned,
> >Kenyon's past problems are settled, but not the underlying issues.
>
> I would argue at this point you don't know anything he taught in class.
Who cares at this point what he really taught? The matter has been
legally settled. What I'm saying is whether or not Kenyon taught about
these issues, it's a fair discussion to discuss if and/or where these
issues, and all the related issues, _can_ be taught, independant of
Kenyon - i.e. the rest of the university system.
It
> is as I said before.. the philosophers and the horse.... Unless you know of
> some good reason to suspect him of dishonesty, why don't you try asking him.
> Then you have some basis to be critical or at least informed.
I responded to the rest of this privately, but I'll make a quick point
here. People who want to agree with Kenyon will agree with anything he
says. People who don't, won't - just like the previous post with the
letter to Lippard. I don't have copies of any of the formal complaints
or responses so I don't know exactly what was said or done. Kenyon will
certainly put his spin on the issue, which doesn't really answer a thing.
In any case, it's beatting a dead horse. Kenyon won his case. Let's
move on.
Tom