<p>I am perfectly calm. Given your previous incorrect and exaggerated comments, it is understandable to doubt your motives in asking what you did. You say you know all about Katrina, but your take on the situation shows no sense of understanding at all.</p>
<p>I’m from New Orleans. So yeah, I know far more about Katrina than you seem to think I do. I’m sure I know far more about the effects of Katrina than someone who’s connection is that their daughter goes to Tulane.</p>
<p>Regardless, I asked because I assumed that the cite would either have or lead to stats on the recovery aspect.</p>
<p>And by ‘getting away with it’ I meant the 30-some-odd tenured professors who were fired. I know at least one of them sued and got a huge settlement, but the rest did not (the reason I’ve always heard is that it would hurt their reputations and chances of being hired at other schools).</p>
<p>I know you are from New Orleans, and trying to play the “I must know more than you” game is pretty immature, IMO. Your assumptions are astounding. I am a lot more involved in the situation than “just” having a D that goes there. I don’t feel any need to present a list of times I was there to help and other involvements I have with the situation.</p>
<p>In any case, you having lived there through Katrina hardly makes you an expert in how Tulane needed to handle the situation in general or with regards to engineering specifically. But if you think you know more than President Cowen, Dean Altiero and the entire Tulane Board, then perhaps you should have volunteered to run the recovery effort instead.</p>
<p>Since you are so big on citations, which professor was it that sued and got the huge settlement?</p>
<p>It occurs to me you are likely talking about Karcioglu, a professor at the medical school. Apples and oranges. They did not eliminate ophthalmology as a department, and the facts of the case are entirely different. Much of the funding for his position came from outside sources, apparently. Also the settlement was never made public as far as I can see. The site “Tulanelink.com” was clearly anti-Tulane, hardly presenting both sides, and they only said
Meaningless for factual information. It also could have been for legal fees only. Who knows. Any lawyer will tell you that the strength of a case when a department or division has entirely been eliminated is far greater, since the individual cannot claim they were personally discriminated against. They can still sue as an individual or a group, but it is a very different case.</p>