Updated: UI trustees fire tenured engineering professor

Updated: UI trustees fire tenured engineering professor

SPRINGFIELD — The University of Illinois Board of Trustees fired a tenured professor Thursday.

Trustees moved to immediately dismiss and revoke the tenure of engineering Professor Louis Wozniak, who has taught on the Urbana campus for almost 50 years. 

The decision — trustees have final authority on such matters — represents the final step for firing a tenured member of the faculty.

Want to weigh in? Click here

The university alleged that Wozniak violated the privacy rights of University students and repeatedly ignored warnings to stop.

"It is the finding and conclusion of the board, based upon the evidence and arguments presented, that there is clear and convincing evidence that Louis A. Wozniak can no longer be relied upon to perform university duties in a manner consonant with professional standards of competence and responsibility," the resolution stated.

Because of the "gravity of Professor Wozniak’s misconduct" he should be fired immediately, the resolution said.

"We have clear obligations relative to our students and to the families they come from, to protect a number of their rights if you will, and the concern rose to a level we felt this was necessary," UI President Bob Easter said after the vote.

The three student trustees abstained from voting on Wozniak's dismissal. All other trustees approved the resolution without any public discussion. The report however does say the board reached the decision reluctantly. 

"While we recognize that our decision is absolutely necessary to protect the best interests of the university and our students, there can be no winners when the precious right of tenure is revoked," it stated.

Wozniak today told The News-Gazette that he wasn't suprised by the vote but said he is not guilty of the charges filed by the university and will likely challenge the decision in court on free-speech grounds.

"I think it's a political thing," he said.

The vote was a rarity for the university, where most faculty dismissal cases are settled quietly, well before escalating to a faculty commitee or trustee hearing. The last time trustees were believed to have weighed in on a faculty appointment was in the early 1960s when they upheld then-President David Dodds Henry's decision to terminate assistant Professor Leo Koch's employment after he advocated for premarital sex in a newspaper editorial. 

The 75-year-old Wozniak hasn’t taught classes since 2010 when the campus started proceedings against him. Wozniak, who has been a member of the faculty member since 1966, has a history of dust-ups with campus administrators. In the 1990s he refused to turn in some student grade books, claiming it violated his academic freedom and privacy rights of students. He was suspended from teaching, but later resumed his teaching duties and went on to win some teaching awards. The current case stems from a dispute several years ago about a teaching award, given by students in the College of Engineering, that he believes should have been gone to him.

Administrators have claimed Wozniak, after learning he received the most student votes for a teaching award in 2009 but was not given the award, disclosed a student’s grade to others and sought student support for his grievance; videotaped students without written consent; appeared before a class after he was suspended from teaching; and violated university policy by sending an email message to students in which he said students should remind him of their names because “I only remember the names of GKs I’ve had sex with,” referring to the students as “grandkids.” Wozniak later apologized to students and said the joke was in bad taste.

In 2011 a faculty committee began reviewing his case and after a lengthy review, the group concluded that Wozniak should keep his job.

However the recommendation to lift Wozniak’s teaching suspension came with the condition that he refrain from talking to students about the award or publishing student information. The university claims Wozniak has not followed those conditions, which he disputes.

Wozniak said he's done his best to comply with the committee's condition but characterized it as a "muzzling order."

"I have a freedom of speech right," he said.

"There was no merit in any of the charges," Wozniak added, saying his joke was "found to be a joke" and was not grounds for dismissal.

As an associate professor in the Department of Industrial and Enterprise Systems Engineering, his salary was $85,549 a year. A graduate of the Urbana-Champaign campus, he had been a faculty member since 1967 and a tenured faculty member since 1972.

The trustees' report on the case said: "Tenure is a matter of fundamental importance to the University of Illinois. . . .  The University awards tenure very selectively and it is rare for situations to emerge in which revocation of tenure is considered.  We do not consider revocation of tenure lightly."

But it said Wozniak had ignored repeated warnings and published confidential student information without apology.

"There is nothing more fundamental to the mission of a university than to protect its relationships with its students," the report said. "This includes ensuring that student confidences are maintained and that information is not published about them without the consent required by university policies. Every student of this university deserves nothing less than our complete and unwavering support of these policies. Prof. Wozniak has refused to meet this most basic understanding.  His termination, therefore, must be effective immediately.”

The board relied on recommendations from faculty who previously reviewed Wozniak’s actions, including the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the Grievance Committee of the College of Engineering, the Faculty Advisory Committee, and members of the Faculty Senate, officials said.

"It's almost a unique experience in the history of the university and I think it’s been very difficult for all of us," Easter said. "We’ve come to the point of having to make a decision. ... I made the decision at the point it came to my desk. And the board has made a decision, as have others in the process beginning with the college."

Still in his office Thursday afternoon, Wozniak appeared pragmatic. He had cleared out most of his personal items earlier in the week.

"I'm the most lucky fellow of having had the honor and the privilege of teaching students of the quality that I've been teaching and forming and cementing permanent friendships with many of them," he said.

"I am hoping by falling on the sword in the field will be cause to awaken some of the more slumbery faculty of the need for a union, the need to be organized, and the need to put shared governance back on life support and try to rehabilitate it to a working status," Wozniak said.

Engineering Professor Roy Campbell, who also chairs Urbana’s Academic Senate, said it seemed that Wozniak was unwilling to negotiate.

"It's sad to see his career end this way. I hate to see any professor in a situation where he can’t finish his career in a good way and leave a legacy. The legacy he’s leaving has a bitter taste," Campbell said.

Other action Thursday by the University of Illinois Board of Trustees:

— UIC chancellor contract extended: The board approved a one-year contract extension for UI Chicago Chancellor Paula Allen-Meares on Thursday and made her eligible for a performance-based bonus.

Allen-Meares became chancellor in January 2009 and currently earns $422,458 a year. In line with a recent shift in thinking on bonuses, trustees approved plans for Allen-Meares to meet with UI President Bob Easter to review current and future goals. The amount of her bonus will be awarded in January 2015, in addition to a base salary adjustment in accordance with the university's salary plan.

— Health center reorganization: The board approved a major reorganization of the university's billion-dollar health enterprise, bringing oversight of the academic health center back to the Chicago campus.

The UI will eliminate a central administrative office established by former President Michael Hogan and instead create a vice chancellor for health affairs office, which would include the hospital, clinics and faculty practice.

The UI may also have the medical colleges report to the vice chancellor, bringing the academic and clinical operations under one office. Additional details will be presented to the board in March 2014.

— State Farm Center renovation: Trustees approved the first package of construction contracts for the hall's $165 million renovation. The contracts, worth a total of about $11 million, cover early-stage earth work, some plumbing and electrical, ventilation and demolition.

A comprehensive financing package for the project is expected to be brought to the board in January. The renovation work will be conducted in several phases to accommodate two men's basketball seasons, with completion scheduled by fall 2016.

— Honorary degrees: The board approved an honorary doctoral degree from the Urbana campus for mathematician George Andrews of Pennsylvania State University, a renowned number theorist, as well as honorary doctorates from the Chicago campus for former Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley; Ertharin Cousin, executive director of the United Nation's World Food Program; and Shing Tung Yau, the William Caspar Graustein Professor of Mathematics at Harvard University.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Lostinspace wrote on November 14, 2013 at 2:11 pm

Freedom is purely academic.

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 14, 2013 at 2:11 pm

Forty years of tenure pays top retirement within the university pension system.  He did not lose that.  Sometimes though people stay on, not for the money, rather than fade away.  I am sure that many of his former students hold him in great respect.  The staying on was more about ego than money.  Seventy five years of age seems like retirement age; but it does not get a "professor emeritus office".

Bulldogmojo wrote on November 14, 2013 at 3:11 pm

It is not reassuring to know that we are all one and I do mean just ONE off color remark away from being terminated. We appear to have jettisoned the notion of redemption and students will take that impression with them into their futures as well. Given that this decision emanates from the hypocritical pez-dispenser like scandal machine that is Henry and Swanland administration buildings, I think in the end they are doing the professor a favor by relieving him of his burden of these charlatans in his life.

pk1187 wrote on November 14, 2013 at 3:11 pm

So sad that this happened. He was a great professor and truly cared about students and helping you learn the material. Anyone who attended class would know that any comment concerning GKs was a joke. Many of my friends and I did vote for him to win that award and we were surprised when he didn't win. The university won't be seeing any money from me for a long time.

Trailmom wrote on November 14, 2013 at 4:11 pm

It appears there is a pattern of unprofessional behavior (off color joke, privacy issues) that was documented.  This would not be tolerated in the corporate world.   What this teaches students is that doing your job well extends beyond just the technical aspects.  

  Professional behavior, and demonstrating how to deal with conflict, concerns, objections appropriately are important LIFE skills that students need. That he was fired for choosing unprofessional and inappropriate behavior is a lesson for the students as well.



Lostinspace wrote on November 14, 2013 at 5:11 pm

"This would not be tolerated in the corporate world."


(UI is part of the corporate world)

Bulldogmojo wrote on November 14, 2013 at 7:11 pm

"This would not be tolerated in the corporate world."

You have to be joking!??

The Corporate world the higher up you go is a coke fuled, binge drinking, all expenses paid frat party.

Go ahead and Google the term "Corporate Scandals" and then rethink that statement.


asparagus wrote on November 21, 2013 at 10:11 am

I agree with your comments.

The University is nothing like the  "corprorate world."  The largest difference is the nearly ubiquitous misalignment of internal and external customers across most administrative and academic departments. Corporations can not afford this kind of mismanagement of resources, but statist bureaucracies are rife with it. Of course stuff like this exists in big companies but it is not widespread nor widely tolerated if the company is healthy. Health for the University does not depend  so much on how well they educate students. Its all about branding and lifestyle and a degree now which is the corporate shell. Underneath the shell there is an awful lot of ideological cruft and waste and fraud. This is why education costs keep going way up ahead of inflation. When your are a bureacrat running your small kingdom you need to protect and expand your kingdom whether it has real value. Long gone are the days of the conscientious managers that sought to streamline their operations to improve performance for their customers in the public sphere. There are still a few good people that try to do this but they are a drop in the bucket. And many, many kudos to those who have this ethic.

As for the behavior of this former professor, we only know a fraction of what actually transpired over the course of years. He had to have slaughtered A LOT of sacred cows to get his tenure revoked.


read the DI wrote on November 14, 2013 at 5:11 pm

He wants tenure AND union? Overkill.

FourOhh wrote on November 14, 2013 at 5:11 pm

read the DI - You mean like public school teachers (K-12).  I'm not saying it is right to award either tenure or even offer collective bargaining to public sector employees.  But, if it is good for K-12 teachers, then why not higher ed?

read the DI wrote on November 16, 2013 at 7:11 am

Tenure gives you a job (and pension) for life, which obviates the need for collective bargaining.


And don't start with how this is proof that tenure doesn't protect the professors. One revocation in two decades is an anomoly.

Sandy wrote on November 15, 2013 at 2:11 am

Previous stories included background information that he received the majority of student votes for a teaching award, but the award went to another person. Put that together with his relatively low rank and salary (for an engineering prof with his experience), and it doesn't take a genius to know that the powers that be in Engineering weren't fans. The Here's-Your-Hat-What's-Your-Hurry method usually convinces the unwanted to retire to another playing field quietly and is the reason official action hasn't been taken in so many years. It's not that he was an especially bad professor -- just a very stubborn one.

HowardBealle2 wrote on November 15, 2013 at 6:11 am


There was a time when UIUC WAS a great university. It was known for research and teaching excellence, and even more importantly, its values.  I was once so proud of what it represented. In the last 15 years or so I defended it when many of my colleagues were losing hope. I was one of the last ridiculously loyal. 

Those days are sadly over, for the university and me.

 Illinois is now officially a second-rate institution, and I've given up.

Revocation of tenure is not something great universities do, and certainly not for this kind of offense: being a royal pain.

Tenure is vital for the same reason the First Amendment is sacred. Universities have throughout their long history been a place where freedom of thought and expression remained alive when the world around them went dark with ignorance, prejudice and evil. There is a reason that totalitarian regimes often begin by repressing, imprisoning, and even killing intellectuals. Prior to a strong tenure system, good professors were fired for things like happening to be German during WW I. Further, these protections are not just for liberals. Being a conservative on a US campus would be next to impossible without the protection that tenure affords. Freedom cuts both ways.

So, shame on the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. You should know better. Shame on you for your disregard of history, and how cheap you hold academic freedom. 

What's next: selling admission for political favors? Oh wait...I forgot what the near-criminal acts of Richard Herman did to our reputation.

Congratulations: you have arrived at second-rate status. What you so easily let slip away will never be regained, not with the overall decline of public higher education. 

So Chancellor Wise: good luck with that 500 faculty (to replace 700 hundred or so lost) replacement figure. With what the Board of Trustees has now done with not much of a fight from campus administration I would rather have my doctoral students go to East Pawtucket State for the Criminally Corrupt (possible new Campus name) before Illinois.  

Way To Go.












dadogg wrote on November 15, 2013 at 8:11 am

Tenure is vital, but can not be absolute regardng these type of criminal, or an least unethical, actions. 

Lostinspace wrote on November 15, 2013 at 3:11 pm

Spot on.  I recall well when the place was still a university with integrity and a sense of what higher education should be.  Very disheartening to witness the downward spiral as we become a trade shool, sports complex, and research arm of business and government.

Lostinspace wrote on November 15, 2013 at 3:11 pm

This was intended as a reply to HowardBealle2.

read the DI wrote on November 16, 2013 at 7:11 am

"Sacred?" Oh my! Enough with the hyperventilating. Tenure is intended to ensure academic freedom and integrity, but was never intended to substitute for or otherwise render needless basic decorum. A university employee broke the rules. The university then punished him for it. This had nothing to do with academics.



read the DI wrote on November 16, 2013 at 7:11 am

"Sacred?" Oh my! Enough with the hyperventilating. Tenure is intended to ensure academic freedom and integrity, but was never intended to substitute for or otherwise render needless basic decorum. A university employee broke the rules. The university then punished him for it. This had nothing to do with academics.



dadogg wrote on November 15, 2013 at 8:11 am

This guy would never last in the real world.  


Trailmom wrote on November 15, 2013 at 9:11 am

dadogg, There are others who suggest you and I are wrong, that this is tolerated in the real world.  I would not see a mid-level person like this professor surviving in the real world.

And the UI is not the corporate world because the corporate world doesn't have tenure or a board of trustees.  He would have been dumped much more quickly, follwed by a company wide or department wide email, "effective today...he is no longer employed."

At some point when things aren't going your way, you have to look at what the common factor is.  And sometimes you are the common factor.  He failed to look at the common factors.

Being popular among students is not a reason to keep someone in a position.  

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 15, 2013 at 11:11 am

He is 75 years old.  He is walking away with a well earned pension.  He is now a martyr in academia.   What is more important; sexual harrassment as it is defined regarding public employees, or tenure?  He sought, and achieved martyrdom; and still has his complete pension with 50 years of teaching.  Any other university, or state employee would have been fired years ago.  Only in Academia............  the last bastion of elitism.  

If you have met him, you know that he is reveling in his noterioty.  So when is the lawsuit?

Local Yocal wrote on November 15, 2013 at 2:11 pm
Profile Picture

But here's some good news:— State Farm Center renovation: Trustees approved the first package of construction contracts for the hall's $165 million renovation. The contracts, worth a total of about $11 million, cover early-stage earth work, some plumbing and electrical, ventilation and demolition.

Who needs financial aid anyway?

Go Illini-indian-type-people!

Highest Gander wrote on November 18, 2013 at 3:11 pm

This case isn’t about tenure, or about how long someone has worked, or ego, or salary, or what the proper retirement age should be. It’s about fair play. And in that regard, poor Prof. Wozniak was doomed from the start. According to a Champaign attorney who’s argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, it’s impossible to fight the UIUC administration. When the university goes after you, you’re dead meat. Faculty members who oppose or question administration initiatives or decisions are targeted for punishment. Whistle blowers in particular are in the university’s cross hairs. Trivial offenses are magnified into capital crimes. Actions that ordinarily wouldn’t raise an eyebrow are spun out and obsessively prosecuted. And if that doesn’t create enough grist for the university persecution mill, high crimes and misdemeanors are simply fabricated. University guidelines are willfully misinterpreted if not just plain flouted. Past experience with university violation of its own regulations, failure to follow due process, fabrication of false accusations, and persecution of those who challenge administrators’ “authority” suggests that it is very difficult to believe anything that the university says in such cases. Prof. Wozniak undoubtedly has been a thorn in the university’s side by resisting university arbitrariness, challenges to free speech, and obstruction of academic freedom. Not all of his responses have been in the best of taste. But if the trivial examples of supposed violations of university policies cited in this case are the best that the university administration and its lawyers could come up with, one has to conclude that Prof. Wozniak was being punished for something other than heinous violations of university regulations. There is hardly a faculty member on campus who could stand up to the kind of minute scrutiny that Prof. Wozniak punitively underwent. Simply put, University administrators arrogantly believe that they are completely unaccountable for their actions, a philosophy that has resulted in a rash of scandals and the dismissal, reassignment, or hasty departures of any number of high-ranking university administrators. When called to task for their actions, university administrators often plead “confidentiality,” fully, and hypocritically, aware that confidentiality is intended to protect university employees and students, not malfeasant administrators. University administrators, some with only minimal teaching experience, have created a firewall between themselves and the faculty, and the concept of shared governance on the UIUC campus has been dead in the water for a long time now. Woe betide any faculty member who presumes to have a vision for a university where ethics, morality, and integrity are guidelines. Faculty members quickly learn to keep their heads down and not to question administration decisions. The administration encourages this by often appointing as department heads the most junior, undistinguished members of a department who will unquestioningly follow administration directives. In a culture of administrative mobbing, any accusation against a faculty member is merely forwarded up the administrative chain, no questions asked. And forget about appeals. Not when the very administrators who were the authors of a trumped up charge also have hijacked the appeals process. In response to this hostile work environment, many of UIUC’s best faculty members have voted with their feet and accepted offers elsewhere. This isn’t the only time that the university’s precipitate actions, totally lacking in any trace of due process or fair play, have given the university a black eye. One thinks of the example of Ken Howell, a professor of religion impulsively fired in 2010 for simply stating what was said in the Bible -- http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2010-07-09/instructor-catholicism... http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2010-07-13/ui-administrators-ask-... http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2010-07-15/ui-grad-student-protes... http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2010-07-25/long-path-ken-howell-i... http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2010-08-02/much-still-be-... http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2010-10-24/religion-professor-bac.... There is a multitude of other less well-publicized examples of the punishment of faculty who were only doing their jobs, and doing them very well, but who fell afoul of bullying administrators. Previous writers were quite correct to say that this wouldn’t happen in the corporate world. If so, then all the more should it not happen in the university world. One does not expect to find morality, ethics, fair play, or integrity in the corporate world. But one would like to find it in the university world, for if the university, as an institution, does not teach us how to behave fairly, ethically, morally, and with integrity, who will?

Local Yocal wrote on November 18, 2013 at 6:11 pm
Profile Picture

Another example is the Board of Trustees were given a proposal to block tenureship for a certain faculty member by the name of Jay Rosenstein, who did this little thorny documentary, called In Whose Honor?, and well, you know the rest of the story....somehow the BOT decided against kicking that hornet's nest and relunctanly allowed Mr. Rosenstein tenure. But that the proposal actually made it before the Board is stunning.

You have to wonder if faculty really want shared governance and independent thought when the professors of the law school blame the Catagory I Scandal on The Chicago Tribune for publishing its existence.

It's far better to have subserviant media outlets like The News-Gazette printing the press releases as is.

read the DI wrote on November 19, 2013 at 10:11 am

Jay Rosenstein doesn't have a Ph.D. That in and of itself should be grounds for not granting tenure.

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 18, 2013 at 7:11 pm

The charges against the professor were not trivial for a state paid employee.  The fact that ample warnings were given over an extended period of time shows the concern over tenure.  Tenure does not trump sexual harrassment ( distasteful sexual jokes in the workplace ) as defined for a public employee.  Freedom of speech does not allow the employee to continually flout their self perceived discrimination in the workplace.  An agreement was previously made, and later broken by the professor.  The university's past administrative scandals do not equate to allowing wrong doing to continue for all.

If some complain that the dismissal was unfair; they are either misunderstanding academic freedom of speech versus sexual harrassment, or using tenure to excuse wrongdoing by a state employee.  Students, and the public are not to be subjected to either in the workplace.  

imustgo wrote on November 19, 2013 at 12:11 pm

An outrageous and foolish remark uttered before a large audience is quite different from a sexual innuendo delivered to an individual person. And the former certainly isn't by itself sexual harassment. I find it shocking that UIUC administrators seem to be invulnerable.  They practice influence-peddling and are caught—and they end up in highly paid tenured positions as professors in UIUC departments, and will no doubt be treated as pillars of the community when they retire. Or they leave town sightly ahead of the newspapers, as it were. Normal faculty-members are forced instead to take risible ethics tests that focus largely on sins they will never have the opportunity to commit.

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 19, 2013 at 12:11 pm

You must be an academic.  Any other state employee, or teacher would know that it is considered sexual harrassment.   Maybe, you should be forced to take your annual ethics test, and sexual harrassment training.  I know.  Your time is valuable; and you do not think that you should be bothered by any of that trivial stuff.

Highest Gander wrote on November 19, 2013 at 7:11 am

A *single* trivial bit of sexual innuendo (you can be sure that if there had been others the university would have found them!) does not, or should not, count as "sexual harrassment", especially when given before an audience that understands the context. Doing so merely trivializes the concept of sexual harassment. And certainly should not merit dismissal. And as for abiding by agreements, there's a double standard here -- if a faculty member violates a supposed agreement (have we ever seen the text of such agreement? i'm sure that the university would have pled "confidentiality" to protect its backside) then the faculty member is liable to dismissal, whereas when the university violates an agreement -- as it regularly does -- its just another day at the office. When the university gets someone in its sights, it regularly adopts the principle of quantity over quantity -- piling statements taken out of context, acts that violate non-existent university regulations, and wilfully misinterpreted actions -- to try to make a case, trusting that any outside observer will figure "where there's smoke there's fire." But we always must remember, "ten bad reasons don't equal one good reason." p.s. I've worked in the corporate world, and the kinds of off-color jokes one hears there by both men and women would make a sailor blush. No one ever got fired for them.

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 19, 2013 at 1:11 pm

They were not public employees.  Your conspiracy view of the university is shared by most of the working public in regard to their employers.   You must not be a state, university, or teaching employee.  The civil service employees are required to take the annual ethics test; and attend training on sexual harrassment, diversity, and other work related topics.  Academians do not have the time supposedly.  Those not employed as state, university, or teaching employees have not kept pace with the changing social culture. 

Highest Gander wrote on November 19, 2013 at 4:11 pm

Alas, no conspiracy theories here... if only it were that simple! These are all documented cases of university harassment and dirty tricks. Most everyone who's been at UIUC any length of time knows of similar cases. In point of fact the academicians *are* required to take the "ethics" test. Every year in fact! The amount of productivity time wasted on this repetitious exercise is absolutely staggering. If only our administrators practiced what they preached!

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 20, 2013 at 12:11 pm

It is a worthless test.  It is only affirming annually that the employee understands ethics in public service employment.  That answers the test issue; but what about the tenure (freedom of speech) issue versus the state employment policy on sexual harrassment, the policy on confidentiality, and the policy on insubordination.  The tenured professor in question was allowed to agree to a deal with the university.  He would remain employed provided that he stopped his violations of employment policies.  He did not keep his end of the deal.  He, finally, was dismissed.  Any other public service employee would never have been given the opportunity to stay based on keeping their word.  They would have been fired as an example to others even though their administrators do not practice what they preach.  Just because one group violates employment policies, it does not mean that all groups should be allowed to do the same. 

remuda wrote on December 10, 2013 at 1:12 pm

Sorry to get into this contest of wills so late.   Happened upon it via the Alumni Assoc. plugs for Connection and other thing$.   Thoughts brought to mind are political, corporate and military cases with similarities.  "..."definition of is...is?" (Clinton)--impeached but didn't lose his 'tenure'.  Boeing (Chicago HQ now) and MD both had presidents with colored "tenures". Generals and Admirals, (samo) and other CO's--mostly political (correct)?  Seen bunches and different regs apply.  If "Woz" was eccentric (like Patton), was he a producer?  A biblical text seems appropo, "...let him who is without guilt..." eh?   Did he lie...or perjure?  Did anyone?

Have all U of I campuses suffered the "Progressive","RINO", "lib", (R), (D) or other syndrom sinkholes?  Last U of I day was Jun 61 then to Navy Preflight and Westpac.  Met JFK in the quad in '60 & followed.  Did Boeing (MacD) twice and other aeromil's defining 75 yrs, so..."seen the elephant".  So the alums, students and other "recipients" of this eccentric semi-prof speak volumes beyond the titillating.  Some of the accounts and the DI show a companion trailer of news regarding "finances".  Curious. 

Wonder where he's headed next.  One of my CO's was busted out for "fraternizing" enlisted.  Another did his MS at Carbondale (SIU) by computer (never on campus).  Kid got his at USC, same way.  A Navy pal did his math PhD at Urbana 47 years ago real time.  Sure different now.  Don't believe in homeschooling K-PhD.  Simulators don't cut it.  Carrier fighter pilots suffer the same visceral "eccentrics" of attitude for a reason (remember the "Hook" convention and busted Adm's).  Too many questions remain here.  Good guy, bad guy...dunno.  Protocols for professors are not unlike "corp." and "corps" regs, but 7 years seems a long time to be in hack unproductively (taxpayers & donors).  Peer reviews, fitness reports, and hard line regs must be somewhere buried in the employee's "'manual' of arms".  Metrics of learning, politics and professionalism?  Student success-- Results...period!

My Biggest complaint ? Eliminating mascot Chief Illiniwek. Once an Ilini, always an   Illini--proud of the native American "warrior spirit".   

Oh well, back to the Morrow Plots, Pilgrim.