George,

Following are the comments I made at today's rally to protest UVa's firing of Dena Bowers:

In September, a university employee who is also an NAACP member--we'll call her Julie--asked fellow university employee and NAACP member Dena Bowers to show her an NAACP report on the possible effects on classified staff of the Higher Education Restructuring Act. On October 11, Dena sent the NAACP report to Julie as an email attachment. The text of Dena’s email included no salutation and the following statement: “Please find the [sic] attached the number [sic] MC/academic side comparisons I gave out and reported on. Thanks, Dena.” Ms. Bowers’ email program added an automatic signature stamp to the email that included her full name, her university title, her contact information, and the following quote from Margaret Mead. “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

A reasonable person could only conclude that Dena’s email was personal. It bears no resemblance to an official university communication, which emanate exclusively from high-level administrators, are formal in tone and structure, and always begin with the statement: “This message was approved for distribution by [name of university of official].”

A reasonable person could only conclude that the report attached to the email was unofficial. After all, the first sentence on the first page of the report states: “Prepared by the Albemarle/Charlottesville NAACP.”

Julie understood that the email from Dena was a personal communication and that the attached report was an NAACP document. I know this because Julie told me so herself.

After receiving the email and report, Julie did something that many of us do with emails that may be of interest to colleagues. She forwarded it. One of the individuals who received the forwarded email forwarded it to another colleague. This individual--let’s call him Steve--then forwarded it to 275 classified employees in the College of Arts and Sciences.

The reasons given by the University for firing Dena do not stand up under scrutiny.

*There is nothing wrong with sending a personal email to a colleague that contains information that is critical of university policies. Nor is there anything wrong with conveying information that later may be proven to be incorrect.

*There was no deliberate attempt by Dena to deceive others into believing that the information in her email was official. In a follow-up email to Julie, dated October 13, Dena even clarified that “I didn’t distribute [this] under my UVa capacity, but through my NAACP capacity.” Julie understood that the email was unofficial, and so did Steve, who wrote in a follow-up email to the 275 classified staff: “I know no more than what’s stated in the documents. Neither should you associate Dena Bowers within her UVa capacity.”

If the evidence demonstrates that Dena’s email was personal and if even the university admits that there is nothing wrong with sending a personal email that is critical of administration policies, why was Dena fired?

She was fired because the administration was desperate to rid itself of one of its most vocal critics among classified staff. She was fired because the administration wanted to send a message to employees that it will brook no dissent as it endeavors to push the management agreement through the General Assembly. She was fired because the administration is eager to slow the rise of the Staff Union, which under the leadership of Jan Cornell has become a powerful and effective advocate for worker rights.

Despite what the university says, Dena Bowers’ firing was an abuse of administrative power and a crude attempt to quash free speech. Nothing less than the values of this institution and our rights as employees of the university are at risk because of the firing of Dena Bowers.

Jeffrey Rossman (electronic mail, December 2, 2005)