Signs of sniping, Himle's frustration

Karen Himle sounds pretty frustrated in these e-mails.

In the first, she appears to say that Dean Al Levine or Bell Director Susan Weller should have pressed her to reverse her decision if they’d been so concerned with it:

In this one, she sounds frustrated that President Bob Bruininks didn’t understand the gravity of the situation. She also wants Bruininks to provide “safe haven” for Weller, who she says likely has been “muted” or threatened by Levine and the university provost. (The section that might have explained why she believed that appears to have been redacted.)

She also quotes a scholar on propaganda techniques, apparently to compare them to methods she thought were being used in “Troubled Waters.”

Finally, she complains: “This problem should never have landed on my desk” and proceeds to criticize how university personnel handled the situation, ending in the statement:

“Perhaps future contracts should be amended to state plainly what can and cannot be said on behalf of the University as the owner of the contract? Perhaps personnel policies need to be examined regarding acts of insubordination and discipline?

(It’s on a snippet at the end of the e-mail that was too small to bother uploading.)

  • Anonymous

    Very interesting stuff in here. So what exactly was the provost’s role in this and why was an exact description of the damage he and Levine allegedly did redacted? I’ve tweeted for those who have trouble reading this stuff:

    wbgleason Bill Gleason

    I [Himle] was very direct with him about the complicity of Dean Levine and the Provost http://bit.ly/a7F764 What is THIS about? #UMN

    wbgleason Bill Gleason

    “urged him to provide safe haven for [Weller] as I believe she was muted under pressure from Provost and Levine http://bit.ly/a7F764 #UMN

    wbgleason Bill Gleason

    “[Weller]…has been threatened in some way by the Provost and/or Dean Levine” following REDACTED http://bit.ly/a7F764 #UMN

    The involvement of the Provost and Dean Levine and any attempt at intimidation of Weller by them needs a thorough investigation. This is the same provost who an appeals court recently found to have acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner. Link: http://bit.ly/9bbykg

  • Guest

    Gleason, as usual, is trying to pin all bad news on the President or Provost. But it’s pretty clear that Himle — a friend of Gleason’s by his own admission — made all of the decisions here.

    Why the fixation on the Provost and President, Bill? The only source you have to point to is Himle herself, making some vague assertions.

    And why not actually point out that Himle is the one who made the decision to censor the film, and only “informing” (with an incredibly biased take on the movie) the President after the fact.

    • Anonymous

      1. Himle did not pull the plug herself. She had approval from people high in the administration.

      Informing the president AFTER the fact? You don’t apparently want to believe your eyes?

      Smoking Gun: “Karen viewed the film and called TPT to cancel it – the President is aware of this.” http://bit.ly/9hw5CD #UMN for shame

      2. The Provost? It certainly appears that something happened between the Provost, Al Levine, and the Director of the Bell that at least needs some looking into. Or do you disagree?

      I [Himle] was very direct with him about the complicity of Dean Levine and the Provost http://bit.ly/a7F764 What is THIS about? #UMN

      “urged him to provide safe haven for [Weller] as I believe she was muted under pressure from Provost and Levine http://bit.ly/a7F764 #UMN

      “[Weller]…has been threatened in some way by the Provost and/or Dean Levine” following REDACTED http://bit.ly/a7F764 #UMN

      3. If you think Himle made the decision HERSELF, you are delusional.

      4. An independent investigation of this matter is in order:

      A Call For An Independent Investigation of Troubled Watersgate at the University of Minnesota

      Link: http://bit.ly/cUeVP5

      • Bob

        By never, ever admitting that you are in the least bit mistaken on any matter, Mr. Gleason, you lose all semblance of credibility. How could anyone possibly take your accusations seriously (no matter what merit they may hold) when you never deviate from your originally formulated opinions, even in light of new evidence? I feel like a scientist should know better.

        • Anonymous

          Excuse me sir. Do not attack the messenger. What new evidence are you talking about? Would you like to explain? I think the evidence here clearly points to a need for further investigation.

          Remember, sir, that the largest newspaper in the state described this fiasco as:

          “the poorly handled decision to delay the film’s premiere has stained the reputation of state’s flagship university.”

          This is not Gopher Prairie, here Bob. Sticking your head in the sand and trying to ignore our problems is not going to solve them. We need to DO something about them. If I have said something that is incorrect, please correct me. Very rarely have I been called on matters of fact and the few times this has happened, I have made corrections.

          I’m sorry, sir, but I consider your comments here to be totally inappropriate, irresponsible, and irrelevant. Come back when you want to say something about the topic under discussion.