Settlement riles Riley

Settlement riles Riley

AAUP court case, censorship, wrongful termination

In the case of the alleged wrongfully termination of Michael Kay and supporting professors, the writer interviewed History Prof. Donn Riley, chairperson of the department that Kay worked in, who held the view that Kay's firing was done with due process and no wrong doing occurred.

Jim Callahan

Quad Angles

Special Collections, Francis Harvey Green Library, West Chester University

1974-11-19

Maria Marabito

Digital images in Library Services' Digital Collections are issued by Special Collections, Francis Harvey Green Library, West Chester University. Images are provided for non-commercial, educational, and personal use only, and are not intended for reproduction or redistribution. For the above purposes the user may reproduce these materials (by download, printing, etc.) without further permission, on the condition that proper attribution of the source for all copies is provided by clearly acknowledging the name of the Library, the title of the web page or resource and the URL at which it was located, please credit as follows: Special Collections, Francis Harvey Green Library, West Chester University, West Chester, Pennsylvania. For questions regarding use of digital materials contact Special Collections (libspeccol@wcupa.edu or 610-436-3456).

https://digital.klnpa.org/digital/collection/wcnp01/id/15237/rec/25

Settlement riles Riley By JIM CALLAHAN A AUPcensure At least one person was not satisfied by what he heard at the AAUP press conference announcing a settlement in the case with West Chester State College. History Prof. Donn Riley, who was acting department chairman in the fall of 1969 when the decision to fire former history prof. Michael Kay was made, said he has "very strong reservations" about the Kay settlement. He said after the press conference he thinks Kay did receive adequate due process when the decision was made to give him a terminal contract. "His case was heard at the department level, at the level of a special faculty committee and at the level of a Faculty Senate committee," he stated. "To accept the AAUP position, you have to believe I, as acting chairman, was prejudiced against Kay and three senior History Department members, four faculty representatives and the entire faculty senate." Riley also felt the AAUP investigators did not point out any violations of Kay's "substantive due process rights" when they interviewed him on the matter in 1970, "I came out of that meeting feeling the Kay case was absolutely solid," he said. Riley also charged that when Kay dropped out of a lawsuit against himself and other college faculty members and administrators in 1972, it indicated there had not been any violations of his rights. Riley felt when he went into the meeting with the AAUP investigator, he waved his due process rights. "By going into that meeting," I had to answer anonymous, unsupported charges against myself," he claimed. "I was not given a list of the specific violations I was supposed to have committed, I did not have the opportunity of cross-examine hostile evidence, and did not have the right to bring in supporters."