Our university got a license to sell alcohol on campus. At the same time, the HR department adopted a resolution that obligates all university employees to undergo random drug testing for “substances.” The presence of “substances” in an employee’s bloodstream is cause for “permanent separation” (i.e. firing.)
Mind you, the directive doesn’t say “illegal, controlled, or narcotic substances.” It says “substances.” Do alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, prescription painkillers, medical marijuana, or over-the-counter meds count as “substances”? Nobody knows. Clearly, this is just a tool that can be used to get rid of people using the ridiculous excuse of “substances.”
This is why when people say that tenure protects professors from being fired, I don’t even laugh. I simply spit in the direction of these dumbasses and go away.
Clarissa's Blog 
“Clearly, this is just a tool that can be used to get rid of people using the ridiculous excuse of “substances.” ”
It also seems like a lawsuit magnet. Anyone getting fired would have a field day. All you would have to show is one person not being fired (since “substances” will be found in every single test). I guess the university has unlimited funds to spend on lawyers?
LikeLike
Yeah agreed here. Will easily bet you no tenured professor will be fired for this in the next DECADE. I doubt any nontenured one will be fired either. And if they are, they will win a massive lawsuit.
LikeLike
People have already tried suing Rauner when he refused to pay for crucial services. They achieved nothing. And those were actual organizations that tried suing him.
The idea that a lone professor can take on the state of Illinois and win is way too optimistic even for me. By the way, all of the professors who are fired each year in spite of tenure never win any lawsuits. I can’t even imagine a lawyer who’d want to take such a case.
LikeLike
Also, in the 15 years that the lawsuit continues, where does one live, how does one make a living? Clearly, not in the state of Illinois and likely not in academia.
There is a reason that such lawsuits don’t exist because even in egregious cases like Salaita’s the thing is super expensive and lasts forever.
LikeLike
I agree with Clarissa here. People who make noises about lawsuits against universities have clearly never tried suing a university.
LikeLike
I have a riddle-type question to ask you, Clarissa. In my Ph.D. exclusion case, it took 1 year and 3 months to my Departement to exclude me, even though they egregiously violate many of their own rules about “reporting the thesis’ seminar for medical reasons”.
Here’s my question: When my Department have warned me that I would be excluded?
LikeLike
…has…
LikeLike
Humm, this is poorly written, so I reformulate.
I have a riddle-type question to ask you, Clarissa. In my Ph.D. exclusion case, it took 1 year and 3 months to my Departement to exclude me, even though they egregiously violate many of their own rules about “postponing the thesis’ seminar for medical reasons”.
Here’s my question: When did my Department has warned me that I would be excluded before they announced their decision?
LikeLike
I reformulate again.
I have a riddle-type question to ask you, Clarissa. In my Ph.D. exclusion case, it took 1 year and 3 months to my Departement to exclude me, even though they had egregiously violated many of their own rules about “postponing the thesis’ seminar for medical reasons”.
Here’s my question: When did my Department has warned me that I would be excluded before they announced their decision?
LikeLike
A week after?
LikeLike
The answer is: never! They had never warmed me of this possibility even though I send to them a letter 6 month before explaining to them how I’ll come back,
But great try!
So, you’re absolutely right, trying to sue an University is useless.
LikeLike
That’s beyond ridiculous. Those freaks!
LikeLike