<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>




































































  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
      <title>Comments On: Lavine&apos;s absent accusers
    
      by Michael Miner</title>
      <link>http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/16/lavines-absent-accusers</link>
      <atom:link href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/Rss.xml?oid=941418&amp;id=comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />      <description>Comments On: Lavine&apos;s absent accusers
    
      by Michael Miner</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2009 Chicago Reader. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Chicago Reader readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Chicago Reader.</copyright>
      <webMaster>wil@desert.net (Chicago Reader Webmaster)</webMaster>
      <pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:00:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Foundation</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Lavine's absent accusers]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/16/lavines-absent-accusers/#957656]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/16/lavines-absent-accusers/#957656]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Former Medillian]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[My understanding is that course evaluations are a matter of public record. So, one way to substantiate the sentiment from the students (though not their exact quotes) is to see how the course was evaluated. I've heard second-hand that it lived up to the hype, but it might help the situation to make that info more accessible. 
    
    Second, does it strike anyone else as ironic that the Dean's letter appeared in the alumni publication last spring and no one (myself included) noticed or acted on it until now? I feel that we were collectively inattentive and I imagine it's harder to reconstruct who said what when this much time has passed.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Former Medillian]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2008 22:19:16 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Lavine's absent accusers]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/16/lavines-absent-accusers/#959721]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/16/lavines-absent-accusers/#959721]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Observer of NU]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[There most likely won't be a response. The NU central administration has no understanding of, or interest in, the difference between Medill's former curriculum of public policy journalism and Lavine's new journalism lite.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Observer of NU]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:30:23 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
      
    </channel>
  </rss>




