Holy Crap! What an incredible hatchet-job! He really walked into that one. I love the last sentence...it says it all.

I'm a bit tired at the moment (in general, of TM and BD, take your pick). There's just so much to pull from that article, though. It's like a question from the Summa, the way she's sets up each issue, allows TM to wax ineloquent on the topic, and then knocks it all down with logic, reason, etc. Well done, Ms. Riley!
Ryder | 08.19.06 - 1:01 am | #

From the Article...

"The battles between Mr. Monaghan and the Ave Maria faculties have become vitriolic. Some have even tried to unionize. When I ask if he sees a contradiction in trying to block such a move, even though unionization is supported by the Catholic Church, he says, "I think that [the church] hierarchy doesn't know as much about those things as they do about their theology."

That captures it all. TM really does think he knows more than the Church...Just like Rev McBrien I suppose.

And the stuff about forcing a professor to recant statements in order to have his contract renewed is just despicable.


I mean seriously...had they gone about a move in a transparaent way without trying to silence critics...It probably would have happened with little resistance.

The problem is that the rumors you have heard ARE true.
Joel Osteen | Homepage | 08.19.06 - 1:11 am | #

The guy is crazy!
Anonymous | 08.19.06 - 1:53 am | #

I haven't commented before since I'm an outsider looking in, but this article....wow!

This particularly struck me:

Mr. Monaghan takes all this in stride. In Ann Arbor, he played racquetball with some academics and determined they liked to "complain about the most meaningless things." And board members of his schools have rushed to agree with him, suggesting, as theologian Michael Novak did recently, that "if it weren't Monaghan, it would be dissatisfaction with whomever."

I guess there's the answer to why the board doesn't feel the need to address the faculty and alumni concerns - you're all just exercising your natural urge to complain about "meaningless things". Oh, my!
Wimsey | Homepage | 08.19.06 - 2:39 am | #

Unreal...it'll be amazing if there's a school to move in 2009.
zirakzigil | 08.19.06 - 3:05 am | #

"Mr. Monaghan decries the "campaign by faculty members to make Ave Maria Town out to be some kind of theocracy." He also says he is "tapped out" financially, and will soon stop giving money to the law school. The only way it would have access to his fortune would be to go to Florida, where it would be entitled to a portion of the profits that the university gets from the sale of the land."

Translation: Monaghan is broke, unless the school moves to Florida. Then, he's mysteriously rich again.
ResIpsaLoquitur | 08.19.06 - 3:49 am | #

Interesting. A lot of the people who are pro-move believe it's in the best interest of the school because it's the only way the school will remain solvent-- i.e. no move, no $$ from Monaghan, no school, that type of reasoning. However, Monaghan's statements in this article suggest that the move will NOT necessarily result in financial stability-- it sounds like since his fortune is drying up, the law school would be maintained by profits from the venture down south. Since that venture is yet unproven and future profits are sketchy at best, a move to FL would be just as unpredictable cashflow-wise as staying in Ann Arbor without Monaghan's money.

I wonder how the new feasibility study is going to incorporate this?
Peach | 08.19.06 - 4:34 am | #

Peach--the article does not merely suggest that we don't have to move for money reasons. "The school's board assured me (as well as the ABA accreditors) that the school could still survive without Mr. Monaghan's contributions ($2 million a year)." Check that again--the ABA THINKS WE CAN SURVIVE WITHOUT TM'S MONEY. A startling revelation.

The second half of this article is great. The first half drips with anti-Christian bigotry, being scandalized that anyone would actually want others to go to heaven and to be educated according to Catholic truth. But these issues are separable. TM is treated unjustly in his motives, but justly for his tactics.
GenXsurvivor | 08.19.06 - 7:11 am | #

...unjustly for these Catholic motives, anyway. Not unjustly for the motive of hurting the law school to benefit the university.
GenXsurvivor | 08.19.06 - 8:17 am | #

The problem really lies in TM's motives. He seems to think that he knows more than the Church. And, he's afraid to let God's will be done and let go of his control over the law school. Is he trying to "save souls" (hubris) or build a monument to himself?
Anonymous | 08.19.06 - 8:41 am | #

I think this is my favorite quote:

He says he is often accused of being "too much driven by numbers, that I'm a hard-nosed, insensitive, results-oriented person." But he adds that the people who know him tell him, "You're not that way."

Hah. The yes-men don't tell me I'm mean.
Casimir Pulaski | Homepage | 08.19.06 - 9:03 am | #

"I'm in favor of the law school moving to Florida, and I think it would be a good thing for the university to have a law school on its campus."

For all those claiming that TM has a conflict of interest - here is proof positive that he SHOULD NOT be allowed to vote about the move - it is a breach of fiduciary duty to move our law school because it is "a good thing for the university." Who cares about what's good for the university? As a member of AMSL's board, his duty is to the LAW SCHOOL!

That quote about the prof's complaining about meaningless things is crap. We know the professors and know that statement is a blatant lie.

Also, the article makes it seem as if people don't want to move because they like Ann Arbor. What about the fact that the move will kill the law school, that our reputation will be more connected to the fanatic/zealot rep of TM, the location is bad for jobs/internships... etc... It should get to the real reasons the move is an awful idea.
just a question | 08.19.06 - 9:06 am | #

Another favorite:

When I ask if he sees a contradiction in trying to block such a move, even though unionization is supported by the Catholic Church, he says, "I think that [the church] hierarchy doesn't know as much about those things as they do about their theology."

And that's the money quote: same logic employed by abortionists and others...

Monaghan must have a banner that says "Keep Your Rosaries off my Payroll!"

The funny thing is that he probably doesn't realize how that comment goes totally against "fides et ratio".
Casimir Pulaski | Homepage | 08.19.06 - 9:07 am | #

Everyone involved, particularly the students and faculty, was vetted with care. They had to buy into the mission: "a legal education in fidelity to the Catholic Faith as expressed through Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church." (should read "teaching authority of the biggest benefactor")


And BD is claiming that Rice, Falvey et al suddenly don't comply with the mission.

What a load of crap, spelled D.E.A.N.
newbie | 08.19.06 - 9:18 am | #

What do you think of the last sentence? Is she suggesting that Bernie and the other trained dogs are even dumber that TM?
Anonymous | 08.19.06 - 9:18 am | #

arf ,

arf arf
newbie | 08.19.06 - 9:19 am | #

I think the whole montage of quotes here: http://whichavemaria.blogspot.co...hit-you- in.html

provide a nice backdrop for all of this mess.

Especially Monaghan's quote above about separating Church teaching from his backyard.

What really cracks me up is the Bowie Kuhn quote that says something to the effect of: If you shove God out, how can you trust them to tell the truth?

How, given that Monaghan picks and chooses what to believe from a 120+ year Catholic social teaching on unions, can Bowie Kuhn expect Monaghan to tell the truth?
Casimir Pulaski | Homepage | 08.19.06 - 9:24 am | #

OOPPPSSSS!!!!

I clicked the wrong link!

The montage of quotes are here:

http://whichavemaria.blogspot.co...nsert- foot.html
Casimir Pulaski | Homepage | 08.19.06 - 9:24 am | #

The school's board assured me (as well as the ABA accreditors) that the school could still survive without Mr. Monaghan's contributions ($2 million a year).

IRS Form 990-PF "Grants and Contributions Paid During the Year" filed by the Ave Maria Foundation:
2002 - AMSL - $8,366,971
2003 - AMSL - $8,313,828

And now one of those professors has been told that he must recant his testimony to department officials if he wants his contract renewed. (A university official acknowledged this was true, which may leave the school open to criminal conspiracy charges.)

People on this blog have yacked about "authority". Is that your idea of "authority"?
Andrew Messaros | 08.19.06 - 9:41 am | #

It's becoming more and more obvious that my decision to turn down Ave Maria's admission offer was, sadly, the right move.
Curmudgeon | 08.19.06 - 10:25 am | #

Curmudgeon,

Then you can understand how those of us, especially in the first couple classes of the school, feel especially betrayed by these charlatains.

Monaghan, with one side of his mouth, says that there must be no equivalency on the teachings of the Church, but with the other side, now says, for the sake of his personal expedience, they are irrelevant to his business.
Casimir Pulaski | Homepage | 08.19.06 - 10:31 am | #

I am waiting for the following defenses of Monaghan...

"You guys have no proof, this article was just a rumor. Even if Monaghan did say that stuff, he was probably misquoted, or didn't really mean it."

LOL...c'mon, you know you guys are out there!
Joel Osteen | Homepage | 08.19.06 - 10:59 am | #

"But he adds that the people who know him tell him, "You're not that way."

Please note that those who did know him who did tell him he WAS that way, have been fired, and TM no longer acknowledges their existence. The rest are yes-men we all know so well. So strictly speaking, he's right there.

I was particularly distrubed by my now favorite cite in support of what I have been saying for a long time- TM views RUNNING AN ACADEMIC INSTITUTION as 90% BUSINESS!!! He also likes to read up on a subject to get to know things. I didn't know they'd come out with "How to Run a Law School into the Ground For Dummies."

Also, let us not ignore the quote already mentioned, TM is broke (in terms of funds he is willing to give) and views the success on the REAL ESTATE DEALS as the only thing he can offer to the law school for funding AND those deals rely on the law school to succeed. A clearer conflict of interest, there ain't in this world. So let's stop saying TM can do what he wants with his money, and we should all be glad to get it. He's done giving from existing sources of money and is relying on a SPECULATION to continue contributions. Nice. Real nice. Let's wait and see if those speculations bear out before we move the school to what may end up like the empty shell of the mansion he was buliding for himself so many years ago, but lost interest.
thelawdog | 08.19.06 - 11:01 am | #

Someone needs to get a copy of The Idea of A University by Cardinal Newman on his desk right away. A university's mission is NOT to save souls, that is the job of the Church! But, I'd guess Newman really didn't know as much about that as he did about theology, did he? Unbeliveable hubris, dizzying idiocy.
Anonymous | 08.19.06 - 11:06 am | #

If TM is running out of money, one other thing I would note...

is that the viability of the florida project/land values would significantly increase with the law school's move (even if it's a skeleton of the law school). However were the law school not to move the florida project/land values could collapse (especially if the dept of education investigation of the University turns out badly)

So one has to wonder if forcing the law school to move to florida is more about keeping moneybag's dream alive, as opposed to thoughtful consideration as to what is in the best interests of the law school.

Keep in mind that Monaghan is a 50% partner with the developers for the town.
Joel Osteen | Homepage | 08.19.06 - 11:09 am | #

"They have laid a trap for the enemies and fallen into it themselves"

Tom and Bernie bring a number of Board members in tow with them to the WSJ to get a good story in response to the NYT. They've all got their talking points, blah, blah, blah. They're going to sabotage the "campaign of misinformation and deceit" with spin in the press. They're going to continue to ignore the students, alumni, and faculty, who don't really know anything. What a bunch of bungling nincompoops.

"dicentes enim se esse sapientes stulti facti sunt"

Thank God Bernie went into teaching after a short and unremarkable practice, it scary to think about what would have happened had he been representing clients all these years.

Let us all pray that this is a turning point in a long struggle against Bernie and Tom. They've been outed as the punks they are.
Biblical Irony | 08.19.06 - 11:09 am | #

Joel Olsteen is right. Its not about moving the law school to Florida (alone). Its about a de facto affiliation with an institution on shakey financial footing and under federal investigation. One wonders if Reed and White will include that in their "feasability" study.
Anonymous | 08.19.06 - 11:22 am | #

TM says, no porn or contraception in AMT. Then the ACLU threatens to sue. TM consults his lawyers and backs down. TM then says "We never ever intended to break the law." Who are his lawyers? What law would he break?
MacIan | 08.19.06 - 11:41 am | #

Griswold v Connecticut held that the prohibition of contraceptives by the state is an impermissible untrusion on marital privacy. Banning pornography would raise First Amendment problems. Assuming such bans by Ave Maria Town would constitute state action, there might be some constitutional violations.
Sine Metu | 08.19.06 - 12:20 pm | #

That's not a valid law. Didn't Rice teach you anything?
MacIan | 08.19.06 - 12:22 pm | #

The depraved and distorted hopes of men esteem human fortunes happy when the splendor of buildings is in evidence, and the collapse of souls is not noticed; when magnificent theaters are erected, and the foundations of virtue are undermined; when the madness of extravagance is glorified and the works of mercy are scoffed at….
St. Augustine, Letter 138 | 08.19.06 - 1:05 pm | #

The school's board assured me (as well as the ABA accreditors) that the school could still survive without Mr. Monaghan's contributions ($2 million a year).

How is it that the "school's board" and "ABA accreditors" think that Monaghan's contributions to AMSL are $2 million a year? The IRS 990s filed by the Foundation show over $8 million a year as "grants and contributions paid" to AMSL in 2002, 2003, and 2004!

Something stinks. Is the ABA being lied to? Ms. Riley, if you're listening, where, specifically, did you get the $2 million figure?

When considering the "survivability" of a school, $8m and $2 are a big difference.
Andrew Messaros | 08.19.06 - 2:03 pm | #

MacIan said, "That's not a valid law. Didn't Rice teach you anything?"

Yes he taught us quite a bit. But reality is reality. Should we sacrifice the viability of the school by moving it to a guaranteed lawsuit? Right or wrong, the law is still the law right now, and I like our chances of taking it down as lawyers from a school with a future rather than from one that is quickly bankrupted by the rising cost of litigation against the town. The ACLU will be happy to watch the money dwindle even if they lose the ultimate battle. We are better positioned to attack bad law from the town we know than the one we don't yet. I have always said, let's take a wait and see attitude with Ave Town. But Anon and others are right, the move is contemplated to bolster the real estate investment, and that's a conflict of interest for at least 5 Governors on the Board.

"Someone needs to get a copy of The Idea of A University by Cardinal Newman on his desk right away."

It sits proudly on my shelf, and was required reading the first week of my undergraduate career.
thelawdog | 08.19.06 - 2:50 pm | #

There's a good response letter to the article from Brian Patrick, a would be AMSL student posted on the WSJ site. http://www.opinionjournal.com/ ed...le_id=110008818
Phlogizo | Homepage | 08.19.06 - 3:13 pm | #

lawdog,

You have some good points about the wait and see approach.

However, it is still incorrect to say TM's original plan would break the law, when such spew as Griswold is the alleged law in question.

Besides, any lawsuit would be brought against the town, not the law school. There are non-profit groups out there such as the Thomas More Law Center and the American Catholic Lawyers Association that would likely join the fight to protect the rights of Catholics such as those running Ave Maria Town.

Sure, the ACLU would be happy to see us pour our resources into such a battle, but they would be happier to see us back down.

Catholics in America do not have many opportunities such as this to incorporate the Truth into local ordinances.

We learned at AMSOL that in the fight against alleged pro-abortion laws, while we can take an incremental approach, we must also fight the unjust law as a whole. This must be applied not only to abortion, but also to other areas touching Catholic morality.

All of this is not to say the move to FL is a good idea. But the threat of a lawsuit should not be one of the reasons to stay in MI.
MacIan | 08.19.06 - 3:17 pm | #

"That's not a valid law. Didn't Rice teach you anything?"

Rice has been raising these same constitutional concerns smart guy. For example, in his Jan 10 memo, he wrote:

"A speech by Mr. Monaghan, in May, 2004, at a conference on business ethics, as described by Naomi Schaefer Riley, would seem to substantiate these concerns. “‘We’ll own all commercial real estate,’ Mr. Monaghan declared, describing his vision. ‘ That means we will be able to control what goes on there. You won’t be able to buy a Playboy or Hustler magazine in Ave Maria Town. We’re going to control the cable television that comes in the area. There is not going to be any pornographic television in Ave Maria Town. If you go to the drug store and you want to buy the pill or the condoms or contraception, you won’t be able to get that in Ave Maria Town.’ . . . . ‘There are not many out there who are really authentic Catholics,’ he said in the same speech. Creating them ‘is what I plan to do in the rest of my life.’”3 Mr. Monaghan’s expectations appear to be inconsistent with settled interpretations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In my opinion, an attempt to mold a community according to Mr. Monaghan’s stated intention would be likely to be held unconstitutional. It would also be imprudent."
Sine Metu | 08.19.06 - 3:19 pm | #

MacIan,
Would you be happier if instead of saying that AMT runs the potential of breaking the law, it runs the potential of having an enormous award of damages and attorney fees based on a suit brought pursuant to current jurisprudence as it relates to the First and Fourteenth Amendments? On top of that, AMT could probably count on a federal judge keeping close tabs to make sure the inevitable injunction is not circumvented. You are arguing about semantics and missing the point. The Supreme Court has held that what Mr. Monaghan (and most of us) would like to do is unconstitutional. Until we get at least one more justice on the Supreme Court, I don't see how we can reasonably advocate that AMT enact ordinances that outlaw things protected by Supreme Court jurisprudence.

The important thing about this news article is the comment that the board apparently believes that AMSOL can survive without Mr. Monaghan. I am inclined to give the board the benefit of the doubt, but if they truly believe that, I do not understand the apparently uncritical agreement that the move to Florida is in the best interests of the law school. Of note, Mr. Monaghan did not indicate that he thought AMSOL could survive without him.
Down South | 08.19.06 - 4:46 pm | #

the board apparently believes that AMSOL can survive without Mr. Monaghan

They can't very well come out and say, "Well, if Tom walks, we're up the creek," can they? Then people might think Tom was running things. Wait...

I do not understand the apparently uncritical agreement that the move to Florida is in the best interests of the law school

They don't think there's any other way to get a multi-million dollar endowment.
zirakzigil | 08.19.06 - 4:49 pm | #

zirakzigil,
I tend to agree. Whatever the board members said to Ms. Riley, I think they truly believe AMSOL is sunk without Mr. Monaghan and that he will pull out if AMSOL doesn't move to Florida.

Personally, I also think the board members want out. I have no real evidence to back it up, but I think it helps explain why they backed the term limit measure. Yes, it got out Professor Rice, but it will shortly get out most of the other board members as well. All that will be left will be Mr. Monaghan, Dean Dobranski and any board members brought on after the Florida deal was (for all practical purposes) decided.
Down South | 08.19.06 - 4:54 pm | #

Let's wait and see if those speculations bear out before we move the school to what may end up like the empty shell of the mansion he was buliding for himself so many years ago, but lost interest.
thelawdog | 08.19.06


".....in heaven there are many mansions, many rooms...."

none built by TM

none for sale to support future lawyers.....yes there are lawyers in heaven.

don"t know about pizza kings
newbie | 08.19.06 - 5:05 pm | #

Doesn't the fact that we're debating the financial and constitutional stability of the town indicative of the utter INSANITY of moving a wholly independent established successful institution there?

Putting AMSL in an unestablished 'university' in, say, Miami, would be controversy enough. But an unestablished town too?

(And don't EVEN try to tell me that AMSL will be free-standing and independent of AMpew in AMT)
Miklos Molnar | 08.19.06 - 5:08 pm | #

I also think the board members want out

Agreed. They don't think Charlie Rice's idea is feasible, and they don't think the school can say no to Tom...but they probably don't want to be attached to an institution that's going to have a mid-to-large scale disaster (not just the hurricanes), either.

Except Mike Novak...he's into "creative destruction."
zirakzigil | 08.19.06 - 5:15 pm | #

I think they truly believe AMSOL is sunk without Mr. Monaghan and that he will pull out if AMSOL doesn't move to Florida.

if so, then what the hell has amsl done in its 6+ years of operation to make itself financially independent of the whims of one man?

one could charge board negligence, but since monaghan is the financial architect for amsl, one can only conclude that he has intentionally seen to it that the school is NOT independent of him by making development a low/non-existent priority
E Kovacs | 08.19.06 - 5:16 pm | #

E Kovacs,
I don't know why they weren't able to raise the money. I do remember repeated comments from Dean Dobranski that they were trying to make AMSOL independent of Mr. Monaghan and I was under the impression that this was a top priority.

Miklos,
I know of no reason in particular that believe that Mr. Monaghan will be any more of a consistent supporter of AMT than he has been of his past initiatives in Ann Arbor.
Down South | 08.19.06 - 5:59 pm | #

Lawdog,

My post should have read: "Some needs to get a copy of The Idea of a Univerity on Tom's desk," not your own. Mea culpa.


Rising 3L who still hasn't received his tie.
anonymous | 08.19.06 - 7:00 pm | #

"And now one of those (AMC) professors has been told that he must recant his testimony to department officials if he wants his contract renewed. (A university official acknowledged this was true, which may leave the school open to criminal conspiracy charges.)"

This is absolutely true. What isn't as well known is the fact that the professor's wife, who was also an AMC faculty member, was told to retract her testimony as well. This situation got particularly nasty because the couple were renting a house from AMC and were told that if they didn't sign the contract with a letter retracting the testimony, housing would no longer be available to them (cited very vaguely, but the threat, however veiled, was still there). Consequently, the couple up and moved last week, rather than sign the new contract, taking a major hit on their family income.

What shocks me about this paragraph is the fact that "A university official acknowledged this was true". How brazen are these people! Is the statement about "Criminal conspiracy charges" true? What do the prudent jurists of Fumare have to say about the conspiracy charges?
Mom of Doom | 08.19.06 - 8:01 pm | #

BTW, A copy of The Idea of a University was given to TM on his birthday the first year AMC was up and running. I know, because I helped locate it for Dr. Muller, Provost of AMC at the time. It's pretty obvious that TM hasn't read Newman's great work, nor Ex Corde for that matter.
Mom of Doom | 08.19.06 - 8:04 pm | #

Mom of Doom:

Read the entire Inspector General Act of 1978, a portion of which says:

§ 7. Complaints by employees; disclosure of identity; reprisals

(a) The Inspector General may receive and investigate complaints or information from an employee of the establishment concerning the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.

... (material omitted)

(c) Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority, take or threaten to take any action against any employee as a reprisal for making a complaint or disclosing information to an Inspector General unless the complaint was made or the information disclosed with the knowledge that it was false or with willful disregard for its truth or falsity.

(Pub. L. 95-452, § 7, Oct. 12, 1978, 92 Stat. 1105.)
kmte | 08.19.06 - 8:29 pm | #

MacIan said, "Besides, any lawsuit would be brought against the town, not the law school."

It has become rather clear, and perhaps this article helps bear out, that the Town and the Ave enterprises will be one in the same. TM uses his non-profits and for-profits together in a questionable manner. If the town sinks, so sinks AMSL.

Anon,

I didn't mean to imply that you thought it should be on my desk. Your intent was clear to me. I just wanted to point out that, for some good Catholic schools, it's required reading, and even I, a lowly attorney without the distinction of billionaire status at anytime in my life, have read it. TM seems to think that he can read up on running educational institutions and know how it's done. But perhaps he should complete a course of studies in one as a first step. I fear insecurity for not having done so is a major factor in any unwillngess to hear criticsm about governance.
thelawdog | 08.19.06 - 9:20 pm | #

but, but, but, LawDog...

Mr. Monaghan said he reads every copy of Chronicle of Higher Education from cover toe cover.

For what would he need "The Idea of a University" when Monaghan himself says the "hierarchy" should keep it's nose out of his business because he knows better than them.
Casimir Pulaski | Homepage | 08.19.06 - 9:58 pm | #

Does reading American Lawyer qualify someone to run a law firm? WSJ for Domino's? Prevention Magazine for a hospital?

The Reily article really underscores how 'mishandled' TM is by those around him, namely Healy and Fessio. Is Fr. Fessio really going to stand behind this "get to heaven through education" nonsense? An irrational and pathologic insecurity of academics, particularly in the area of know-how and qualifications, appears to be shared by TM and Healy.

That is not to say that I feel sorry for TM. When he actively seeks to boot people who disagree with him, he perpetuates his own dysfunction.

Everyone on that Board is making a fool of him/herself as TM's lemming.
E Kovacs | 08.19.06 - 10:36 pm | #

"And the stuff about forcing a professor to recant statements in order to have his contract renewed is just despicable. "

Thanks for the words of support, Joel.

I can at last say openly that I am the professor in question. And not just a professor: a departmant chairman and dean, as well.

The reality of the situation was much worse than Ms. Riley summarized in her article.

The fact is that I (and most of the other faculty) _had_ a contract, signed by AMC president Ron Muller in 2004, good until 2007. I should, in fact, still be employed there. But for reasons I do not understand, the AMC Board denied the validity of these contracts, even though every lawyer to whom I have shown these contracts has prounounced them valid. Instead, the AMC administration pursued a curious fiction of issuing faculty one year "contract renewal" letters, acting like we were only on year-to-year contracts. Each letter had a line in it noting that our Faculty Handbooks contained restrictions that we were not to "embarrass" the institution. I must admit to having found this language particularly galling: as one of the founding facutly of AMC, I had a hand in the creation of the Handbook in the first place, and that language was put in to the Handbook to deal with professors who fell into public heterodoxy, not to muzzle faculty who had legitimate complaints about how the institution was governed or mis-governed. If Original Intent matters, I can tell you what it was, since I was there, and was one of the framers.

And yes, I will admit that I am one of the people responsible for complaining to the IG wing of the Department of Education about the mismanagement of financial aid monies, and other matters, by the Ave Maria administration. And when it came down to "buy-out" deals for the final year of AMC (as though our 2004 Muller contracts weren't valid!), I can confirm that my and my wife's "contract" insisted that we surrender all legal claims against the institution, in return for the institution surrendering NO claims against us.

When we pressed for a mutual release of claims instead, we were told by AMC president Dan Guernsey that AMU president Nick Healy did not want to allow the institution to give a mutual release of claims, as he believed that it doing so might interfere with his ability to sue us for libel _personally_. His point of contention was over the 2004 complaint that we and others made to the IG wing of the Department of Education: we were told that he said that he had felt "hurt" by it, and that it might be damaging to him and his future earnings. Finally, I can confirm that as of last month, my wife and I were told that we could get some elements of a mutual release if we agreed to retract the statements we had made to the Department of Education, and indicate that we had no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing on the part of President Healy.

The sad thing, for us, anyway, is that most of the other AMC faculty we spoke to afterwards said that when they had asked for mutual releases of claims, they received them. As nearly as we can tell, only my wife and I were denied them, and we wonder if it is because we were whistleblowers. In any event, we were personally and professionally insulted by the retraction request. I am a historian, and it is my job to preserve the past, not bury it. My wife is a librarian, and it is her job to provide information, not supress it.

We may as well have been asked to deny who we were.

In the end we found ourselves in an untenable situation. We knew that we had the law on our side, and that we could win if we stuck it out. But we also knew that if we tried, the Ave Maria leadership would make our lives miserable in many petty ways. So, like many other people, we left Ave Maria, and, indeed, the state of Michigan, suddenly and without warning. We did this in part for our own and our family's protection. But we left with our souls intact, and with our freedoms--to speak, to litigate, or just to walk away--unimpaired. We are poorer, but we are free. And that is a reward above price.

And for anyone who is new to this controversy, some advice. From a guy who knows. I was the first faculty member hired by Ave Maria Institute, back in 1998. I was there before just about anyone else was. And I'm an ex-Department Chair and an ex-Dean.

The people you want to listen to? That would be folks like Charlie Rice, Andy Messaros, Jay McNally, Kate Ernsting, and anyone else on their side.
Christopher Beiting | 08.19.06 - 11:07 pm | #

Torgo's take on the jackass cafeteria Catholic Monaghan.

Pope Paul XI says:
"Monaghan either blasphemes what he knows not, or understands nothing of what he is only superficially acquainted with, or if he does understand convicts himself formally of injustice and ingratitude."

http://whichavemaria.blogspot.co...s- monaghan.html
Torgo | Homepage | 08.20.06 - 12:07 am | #

ummm... oops.. Pius XI
Torgo | Homepage | 08.20.06 - 12:53 am | #

Christopher,

Our prayers are with you. Thank you for your courage.
thelawdog | 08.20.06 - 1:54 am | #

Thank you for your courage, Dr. Beiting. God's blessings!
AmericanPapist | Homepage | 08.20.06 - 3:14 am | #

Prof. Beiting:

May God bless you and your family.

Your story of suffering and courage is an inspiration to those of us (alumni, students, and faculty) who are still caught in the clutches of this heartless gang of petty thugs.
Anonymous | 08.20.06 - 3:47 am | #

Dr. B,

You know you have (as always) our support, our prayers, and our righteous indignation on your behalf! You and your family poured yourself into AMC and have been very poorly repaid.

Regards,
Kate and Liam
Kate | Homepage | 08.20.06 - 8:19 am | #

Dec. 2005
from: former chairman of economics at AMU

AMU does not behave like a Catholic employer. The university is run as a secular business venture with an outdated business model that relies on cutting costs to meet goals. As Chair I have attended dozens of meetings and have been generally appalled at how little consideration the views of students, faculty or staff are given, Catholic social teaching principles are never seriously invoked and when I mentioned them, they were politely discarded. Given the problems with living wages it would be natural to unionize the faculty, as our neighbor FGCU did with good effect on improving retention and recruitment, yet every faculty member perceives correctly AMU as a union buster, the type of employer the social encyclicals condemn. Justice issues are systematically neglected in the employer-worker relationship. Instead, sacrifice is preached as if charity could justify violations of justice. If the university wants the faculty to sacrifice pay the faculty fairly, then let them donate the money back if they want to. Do not confuse justice and charity. I have decided no longer to teach Catholic social teaching in large part because of the example of AMU administration. It is no wonder Catholic social teaching has no widespread credibility, Catholics do not follow it.
anonymous | 08.20.06 - 9:04 am | #

I am saying this in the greatest charity possible, but someone needs to put a muzzle on Monaghan. I should check with someone who never went to the school to see if their impression of him compares with mine.
Works Near Water | 08.20.06 - 2:35 pm | #

Perhaps Tom Monaghan should keep in mind that, when men of power run up against the Church, they discover that she can hold a lot of power, in her role as Mater et Magistra (Pope John XXIII, 1961). That's what the Holy Roman Emporer discovered when he tried to practice lay investiture:

From Wikipedia, "Walk to Canossa":

When, in his early papacy, Gregory VII attempted to enact reforms to the investiture process, he was met by much resistance from the Holy Roman Emperor. Henry insisted that he reserved the right to 'invest' bishops and other clergymen, despite the papal decree. Henry renounced Gregory as pope; in return, Gregory excommunicated and deposed Henry. He stated furthermore that, one year from that day, the excommunication would become permanent and irrevocable.

....
When Henry reached Canossa, the Pope ordered that he be refused entry. According to the first-hand accounts of the scene (letters written by both Gregory and Henry in the following years), Henry waited by the gate for three full days. During this time, he allegedy wore only his penitent hair-shirt and fasted. Although no contemporary sources report this, it has since been speculated that Henry spent much of his time during these three days in the village at the foot of the hill.

On 28 January (the feast of Saint Paul's conversion) the gates were opened for Henry and he was allowed to enter the fortress. Contemporary accounts report that he knelt before Pope Gregory and begged his forgiveness.
kmte | 08.20.06 - 2:41 pm | #

I encountered some third parties at the Ypsilanti Heritage Festival today who brought up the recent WSJ artice (knowing I am affiliated with AMSL) and each commented, essentially the same, that they thought TM came across sounding disingenuous and even silly.
Poor Billy | 08.20.06 - 4:13 pm | #

I am saying this in the greatest charity possible, but someone needs to put a muzzle on Monaghan.

hiding him helps on the public perception end of things, but doesn't that just make things worse ultimately? we catholics love truth, right? letting/encouraging TM to speak freely shows you and the public (i.e. donors) the TRUTH of what the employees and students labor under

i say, give him, fessio, bernie, and healy the biggest microphone possible & let 'em go. give 'em enough rope and they'll do the inevitable
E Kovacs | 08.20.06 - 4:24 pm | #

Does the WSJ article expose an aspect of the Culture of Death usually over looked?

We have to remember that the Culture of Death is not simply limited to abortion and related issues, it is a description of a culture which finds value & efficiency in curtailing the moral demand to always treat persons with dignity no matter the circumstances:

"Whatever is opposed to life itself, ... whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as ... attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity ... ; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator".

- Evangelium Vitae

Those of us who would politically identify with the Right tend to focus on abortion, gay marriage, etc. as the locus issues of the Culture of Death, while tending to ignore how our Business Culture is infected by this same ethos.

What we see demonstrated in this article by Tom Monaghan is a business ethos which at its core has the same underlying assumptions as the ethos which commits abortion.

John Paul the Great described the root of the Culture of Death:

"This reality [multiplicity and gravity of today's social problems] is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable "culture of death". This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another."

- Evangelium Vitae

The point is that a lack of solidarity, and an excessive concern with efficiency has created a culture where the powerful prey on the weak - this culture is a Culture of Death, however in "business" these are values to be extolled.

In Prof. Christopher Beiting's post above, we see this culture in action. This culture makes fleeing the most attractive and reasonable course of action - fleeing from a Catholic College indeed! One is reminded of the Holy Family fleeing the grip of Herod.

Did the Monaghan Machine treat Prof. Beiting (and Prof. Rice, et al.) as "brothers" of the same Christian family?

Or, did the Monaghan Machine take the most efficient means to achieving their ends?

Did those means effectively result in an attack by the powerful against the weak?


Obviously the murder of an innocent baby is a result much different than beating up on a professor and his family. However, the core culture which permits each of these ultimately has the same author, and both "poison human society".
Columcille | Homepage | 08.20.06 - 11:14 pm | #

Bravo.
zirakzigil | 08.21.06 - 1:55 am | #

Columcille-

Indeed.

-Kate
Kate | Homepage | 08.21.06 - 9:01 am | #

"A number of professors have resigned; some have launched lawsuits; the contract of a prominent emeritus professor from Notre Dame was not renewed. Faculty reported the college's administration to the Department of Education for fraud involving financial aid in 2002. (The school denied any wrongdoing, but paid back about $300,000; the investigation hasn't been concluded.) And now one of those professors has been told that he must recant his testimony to department officials if he wants his contract renewed. (A university official acknowledged this was true, which may leave the school open to criminal conspiracy charges.)"

Fumarists?

Has the text of the WSJ article been changed?

A quick look at the on-line version indicates that the last two sentences of the above excerpt are not present.

Was this also the case in the print version of this article?

If this section has been removed, does anyone know why?

I do have a vested interest in it, after all.
Christopher Beiting | 08.21.06 - 9:23 am | #

Damn, you're right...


Maybe you should e-mail the reporter responsible for the story and ask her what happened.

Perhaps this is a symptom of the paranoia I acquired while working for AMC, but the omission of these sentences looks like suppression to me.

BTW, if anyone hasn't figured this out by now, I am married to the Good Doctor Beiting - the Idea of a University story should have been a dead giveaway. I started participating in this blog with a nom de plume, to protect the Good Doctor, & my four children who went to school with Monaghan grandkids, Roney children, & other board members' and AMSOL/AMC faculty kids & grandkids. Now that I no longer work for AMC, I am free to speak as well, though I wish this whole thing would end like a bad dream, so we can get on with our lives and build a more stable and Catholic environment for our kids.

MomofDoom aka SPB aka Sarah Beiting
MomofDoom | 08.21.06 - 9:50 am | #

MomofDoom and Dr. Beiting,
Thanks for your testimonies and support. May God bless you and your family.
Thales | Homepage | 08.21.06 - 10:08 am | #

I second Thales' comments.
thelawdog | 08.21.06 - 12:51 pm | #

Down South, Sine Metu, and lawdog,

I respectfully disagree that I am talking semantics. It should sincerely offend the sensus Catholicus to hear Griswold and the like referred to as "the law".

I know that TM's original plan could be cut down in federal court, but it's not guaranteed. And fines and such are not guaranteed either. Besides, wasn't the idea to have everyone waive their constitutional rights to porn and contraceptives when they moved to AMT, by signing deeds and leases and whatnot? Seems like a twist on Supreme Court precedent, anyway.

In the end, if Rice thinks its imprudent, then fine, I concede, let's keep waiting.
MacIan | 08.21.06 - 1:20 pm | #

"In the end, if Rice thinks its imprudent, then fine, I concede, let's keep waiting."

Waiting is the key. There is no downside to AMSL in waiting to see how the town does, except that due to TM's impatience brought on, no doubt, by the role AMSL will play in helping bolster the real estate investment, he will pull funding. Well, according to this article the real estate deal WILL BE the funding. Oh my. How about we raise cash the old fashioned way - by getting real donations that aren't subject to the whim of the giver after the check is "written."
thelawdog | 08.21.06 - 2:43 pm | #

MacIan asked:

"[W]asn't the idea to have everyone waive their constitutional rights to porn and contraceptives when they moved to AMT, by signing deeds and leases and whatnot?"

There have been some interesting remarks in these comboxes about how the "no porn/no contraceptives" environment could be acheived through a matrix of real estate leases and other contracts. Perhaps MacIan was the one who suggested them.

Maybe such an environment could be acheived in that way, but I don't think that was the original idea. I think the original idea was first mad public in an off-the-cuff remark made by TM to a sympathetic audience. TM said, as I recall, "We're (meaning TM) gonna own everything, so there'll be none of that stuff there."

MacIan's idea is interesting. Perhaps some regime of covenants and contracts would provide for a legally enforceable restriction on porn and contraceptives. But it gives TM too much credit to suggest that this is what he meant. TM meant: It's my town; its residents shall do as I say.
Boko | 08.21.06 - 3:32 pm | #

Boko,
I think MacIan is exactly correct about how they plan to accomplish their objective. As I have said elsewhere, however, I am skeptical that it will work based on prior precedent. That is my area of law and while it would be great if it could be pulled off, I think it is more likely to result in the deed restrictions being stricken and I think that is a bad legal result for us overall.
Down South | 08.21.06 - 3:54 pm | #

DS and MacIan,

I think the plan, as stated by MacIan, is an interesting one, although I share DS's skepticism.

But do you really think that's "their" plan? (I put the "their" in quotes because I think only TM has that objective. B-C has distanced itself from TM's remarks.) The covenants regime is an afterthought, something presented to TM after he had to be told that he can't just tell people "This is my town and you can't do that here."

B-C won't let TM interfere with selling luxury second homes to snowbirds. TM will have to pay all the costs of any lawsuits, I'm guessing, or B-C will sue him. Of course, doesn't everyone who does business with TM eventually sue him?

I'd be willing to bet that either B-C sues TM at some point or they agree not to sue him as part of some pre-suit settlement. Any takers?

(The above is not to be construed as an offer, but rather as an indication of a willingness to consider offers made by others.)
Boko | 08.21.06 - 5:21 pm | #

Implementing prohibitions on porno/contraception through restrictive covenants and other agreements will not necessarily extricate Ave Maria Town from state action. Remember Shelley v. Kraemer? The court struck down a restrictive covenant between private parties which excluded blacks and asians from owning property in a private neighborhood. The court found that the judicial enforcement of the covenant sought by the property owners constituted state action. In other words, the covenants by themselves were immune from judicial attack, but they were effectively unenforceable because judicial intervention constituted state action.
Sine Metu | 08.21.06 - 5:37 pm | #

Sine Metu,
Exactly. Those precedents have not been applied in this context before and so people have been able to get away with those sorts of restrictions, but I think the reluctance to apply Shelley and the company town cases has been that these sorts of deed restrictions have never been applied to an entire city and/or have never been set in place by basically one landowner. AMT is not the case on this issue that I would want going up on appeal because it is pretty clear that it is an attempt to make an entire town/city that is exempt from the restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court. That is precisely why the courts ruled that "company towns" are subject to the First Amendment, despite the fact that all property was owned by the company.
Down South | 08.21.06 - 5:59 pm | #

I defer to you guys on Con Law. I get excited about the potential opportunities for AMSOL grads to play a great part in this sort of thing. You know, working for the greater good and all that jazz.
MacIan | 08.21.06 - 9:21 pm | #

MacIan,

I think its great too, but we stand a better chance from AA than from Florida. If the funding of the school is tied to how the town weathers the constitutional challenges (or does not weather them, as the case may be), we may not have any reinforcements to fight these battles. No one is saying we shouldn't fight them (at least I am not saying that), but I think we'd be on firmer ground if the institution doesn't fold due to decades of litigation over the issue. Nice part is, if the town wins, we can look to see if a move makes sense when the dust settles. If the town thrives, the University is making AMSL like progress, etc. etc., then take a look at it. Of course, based on what I have seen recently, I am not sure a move with TM or BD in the mix makes sense. Too many question marks there.
thelawdog | 08.22.06 - 11:21 am | #

I am a newcomer to this blog, but a very interested follower of this whole affair. I have a question for those of you here who have been employed by, or worked for, Tom Monoghan and Ave Maria.

Why did he not seek out already excellent Catholic institutions and invest his money there?

Christendom College and Thomas Aquinas College come to mind.

Secondly, why did the professors not consider teaching at these fine Catholic colleges, and maybe add Univ. of Dallas also.

I'm not trying to be provocative, but asking a simple question that many of my friends are wondering, as home school parents, and we consider where to send our children to college.

Why not dump money into and fund already existing colleges?
Brian | 08.22.06 - 5:20 pm | #

Brian...

to the best of my knowledge...none of those schools have law schools

I also believe that there was some consideration to a steubenville law school which never went anywhere.

I know there was a whole fiasco where monaghan pulled a ton of money he was donating to steubenville...I'm not sure why he did that or what it was in relation too.

But anything else I could add to this subject would be speculation.
Joel Osteen | Homepage | 08.22.06 - 11:42 pm | #

Brian, you ask:
"Why did he not seek out already excellent Catholic institutions and invest his money there?"

TM does invest in already existing Catholic institutions, but as a general rule, it must be admitted that TM likes to found his own institutions. Why? I'm not sure, you have to ask TM, but remember TM is a successful businessman... it's in his blood to start up, found, and control institutions.

Second, you ask "why did the professors not consider teaching at these fine Catholic colleges, and maybe add Univ. of Dallas also."

Joel's right; none of these have law schools. Ave Maria Law is unique in the whole world for its commitment to a Catholic legal education (St. Thomas Law is on the same track, but still not at the level of Ave Maria.) As for Ave College: some of the professors at Ave College were attracted from the Catholic schools you now mention, and now that the College has been closed, I'm sure the professors are seeking jobs at those same Catholic schools.
Thales | 08.23.06 - 9:42 am | #

The original version of the article said:

And now one of those professors has been told that he must recant his testimony to department officials if he wants his contract renewed. (A university official acknowledged this was true, which may leave the school open to criminal conspiracy charges.)

I call that extortion, which is vcery despicable. Because Doctor Beiting's wife was threatened with the same, I call that very despicable.
Tom | 08.23.06 - 11:48 am | #

Chris and Sarah, God bless.

As I criss-cross this great country and speak to administrators and faculty about industry best practices, I now have a bottomless source of examples to cite for "What Not to Do."
The Curling Coach | 08.31.06 - 3:44 pm | #

When you need to have equips, you must be have owned Angels Online gold!
Angels Online gold | Homepage | 09.18.08 - 4:47 am | #

If you feeling not well, you can buy Angels gold, and you will get more and more!
Angels gold | Homepage | 09.18.08 - 4:48 am | #

At the same time I have kal online geons, I do not forget them, help them graduating, killing monsters, and take care of their children when they are on the battlefield in time!
kal online geons | Homepage | 09.19.08 - 2:21 am | #

New player you know, kal online gold is very important, you may use him to purchase anything!
kal online gold | Homepage | 09.19.08 - 2:22 am | #

I still buy AO credits

, at present; it is something that I want to do first. It is the clear mind in my heart. I will catch this key very tight. I will never let it go.
buy AO credits | Homepage | 09.25.08 - 11:38 pm | #

Nowadays, I have little shadow of legend Gold money ; I do not how long I can go this way
shadow of legend Gold money | Homepage | 09.25.08 - 11:43 pm | #

Rolex Day Date watches and replica Rolex Day Date watches made with swiss movement ! so cheap and high quality ! accept paypal ,and 14 days money back without reason !
Rolex Day Date watches | Homepage | 10.20.08 - 11:33 pm | #

flyff penya
flyff money
flyff penya | Homepage | 11.30.08 - 2:32 am | #

Anarchy credits
Anarchy Online credits
Anarchy gold
elsie | Homepage | 12.09.08 - 2:40 am | #

I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch Holy Crap! What an incredible hatchet-job! He really walked into that one. I love the last sentence...it says it all.
luxury watches | Homepage | 05.10.09 - 9:30 pm | #