Georgia Professor’s Complaints Rejected : President Says Kemp Became Target of Retaliatory Acts

An investigation into grievances filed by University of Georgia Prof. Jan Kemp found that she was subjected to retaliation, but university President Charles B. Knapp said in a report released today that most of her complaints have little merit.

The details were included in an inch-thick report released by the university.

In a wide-ranging set of grievances, Kemp earlier this year alleged that there were deficiencies in the student judicial program, problems in the testing of students and reporting of their scores, excessive assistance by tutors for athletes in the developmental studies program, abuses in drug testing of athletes and partiality toward wealthy students and athletes in disciplinary matters.

Two faculty committees and the university’s legal advisers reviewed the grievances filed by Kemp, who gained prominence in 1986 for a lawsuit that successfully challenged her firing from the university. She won a $1.08-million judgment.

Knapp said at a news conference that there was no basis for the major complaints filed by Kemp, although he added that the university is going to “tighten up” a variety of academic and administrative procedures as a result.

Mandated by State

In the report, Knapp said a recommendation by a faculty committee that the university consider abolishing its developmental studies program is impossible because the remedial program is mandated by the state Board of Regents.

But Knapp did find instances of retaliation against Kemp.

According to the report, the university committees confirmed that inaccuracies had been placed in Kemp’s personnel file, that her campus address had been changed in the university directory to an erroneous one, that she discovered by mailing faked letters that her mail was not being forwarded to the correct address and that in 1986 a university administrator interfered with her speaking engagements.

Knapp said he considered the acts of retaliation against Kemp a serious matter. He refused to detail the inaccuracies found in her personnel file, saying that would be an invasion of privacy.