She is definitely playing the martyr-card. The irony is the professors DID ask her and she threatened to SUE them! Someone please write a letter to the editor of the CL and remind them of this fact!
Plus the other article about this in the CL today has Hanbury talking about the phantom "outside legal counsel" that he contacted to check out these charges against Glamser and Stringer. As far as we know, it could've been Jim Keith that he consulted!
I think I've exceeded my allotment of letters to the editor of CL this week, so someone else please write in and refute this crazy picture of Angie as "poor pitiful me."
What I find so damned funny about her statement that they could have just asked her is that, while she said those words, she clenched her fists and her faced reddened.
That sounds like a REALLY approachable person, does it not? /sarcasm
Honestly, I think everyone who read that last paragraph of the article understands just how "approachable" she is.
Sheesh. I just read the article. This whole mess is a gold mine for an enterprising reporter. If Riva can't handle it, maybe the Chronicle of Higher Ed could be notified? They did a pretty nice article a few weeks ago.
Actually, the CL version is not so different from what we saw before. It just leaves out the education portion. It isn't until you start comparing the education to the employment history that you start thinking "how the heck is that possible?"
Dvorak's resume has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. Why aren't these reporters comparing the education to the professional experience? And, it was a good point made earlier that Dvorak's reaction to being questioned about her resume was to sue! If she always finishes what she starts - she needs to fess up.