By Rachel Quinlivan
Executive Editor

When I became editor of The Student Printz, I never expected that the Thames Administration would attempt to use a student in the way they attempted to use me on Wednesday, during the hearing of sociology professor Frank Glamser and English professor Gary Stringer.

This misuse started when Dr. Thames and his legal team attempted to misconstrue the meaning of emails I’d sent to Dr. Glamser at the beginning of this semester. Those emails asked for information regarding the plans of the USM chapter of the American Association of University Professors for the semester and the organization’s subsequent investigation of the credentials of Angie Dvorak—essentially part of a normal newsgathering process. In those emails, which I was under the impression were private, Dr. Glamser offered to write me a letter of recommendation because he’d thought one of my articles in the newspaper was well-written. I took the offer as a wonderful compliment from someone I have a great deal of respect for, nothing more.

From this email, Dr. Thames assumed I was being bribed, that because Dr. Glamser had offered to write a letter for me, I would in turn write an anti-administration story, which I didn’t.

There are many implications of such an assumption, and all are personally insulting.

First, Thames assumes that I can be bought, that a favorable letter could sway my opinion and my integrity to go against all that I have learned as a journalist at this university and in the work place.

I have very strong opinions about this administration, opinions I have held since several upper level administrators insulted the work of both me and my staff, used intimidation tactics in their conversations with the Printz staff and told me on several occasions stories I was working on were “non-stories” or something “students wouldn’t care about.”

Some of those insults were emailed to the Printz account, perhaps those administrators would like their emails published or broadcast as mine were.

But my opinions have been kept private, shared only with those I trusted, including Dr. Glamser. I have never written an editorial about this administration, instead choosing to work as a reporter, not as a columnist. Just because I am a journalist doesn’t mean I don’t have an opinion, and just because I have an opinion doesn’t mean I can’t report the news objectively.

Also, Dr. Thames’ testimony brings to light that this administration can and apparently does monitor emails, both students and faculty, even though in my case, those emails were from an AOL account not affiliated with this university. If this indeed is a routine procedure of this administration, students and faculty should know about it. And that information should be listed on every syllabus that goes out to every student in every class on this campus and should be posted at the end of every email sent from a university account.

Students tell their professors personal information all the time, information they do not wish to be shared with anyone other than the person the email is addressed to. In my case, this information was used to question the character and integrity of both me and of Dr. Glamser.

Dr. Thames testified that not once did Dr. Glamser or Dr. Stringer ask for the vita of Angie Dvorak during the AAUP’s investigation, but not once did he or any member of his legal team ask for an explanation from me regarding those emails or their meaning. In addition, that same legal team never notified me that I was associated with this case, let alone that they were attempting to use me as a witness to justify initiating termination proceedings against these professors.

Dr. Thames also apologized for mispronouncing my name during the hearings. That’s no big deal, it happens all the time. What he should be apologizing for is attempting to ruin the reputation and calling into question the character of one of his “prized possessions.”

What can I say?  I am so damn impressed by this woman.