ARTICLES CONCERING GORDON C. CANNON, OMBUDSMAN,
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI

For more articles and editorials concerning Dr. Cannon please click here.

(March 7, 2010) University of Southern Mississippi -- A Tribal Moral Community, part 2 A question directed to Ombudsman Gordon C. Cannon, PhD, at his deposition on April 16, 2010 about his investigation of Professor DePree was, “If (someone) told you something, and it wasn't true, and you based your recommendation (in your ombudsman report) on that fact, would that change your recommendation?”
Cannon responded, “I don't think it would change anything.”

(March 7, 2010) University of Southern Mississippi -- A Tribal Moral Community In this new series, we will review the peculiar behavior of faculty at USM �-- peculiar because it is inconsistent with their extensive education and training. We shall show how science�-trained colleagues totally ignored their long years of education and research in favor of irrational behavior.

(March 9, 2010) University of Southern Mississippi -- A Tribal Moral Community, part 3 Cannon’s purpose was, as he testified, to verify the allegations were made, not that the allegations were supported with any evidence much less sufficient evidence to support the allegations. Dr. Cannon didn’t care whether there was any “substantiation”. The allegations, and confirmation that the allegations were made, were enough for him.

(March 9, 2010) University of Southern Mississippi -- A Tribal Moral Community, part 5 President Martha Saunders assigned Ombudsman Gordon C. Cannon with recommending whether to terminate Professor DePree’s tenure and employment at USM. At his deposition on April 16, 2010 Cannon was asked:

(March 9, 2010) University of Southern Mississippi -- A Tribal Moral Community, part 6 Cannon said he “probably” read “the first three pages and the last three pages” of extensive sworn testimony. The truth is he “probably” didn’t read the sworn testimony at all. If he didn’t go any farther than the first three pages and last three pages, he didn’t see any testimony. Had he performed his duties as the trained scientist that he was supposed to be, he would have studied the evidence and facts and acted to confirm them. He would have learned, for example, that DePree’s accusers either recanted the statements or contradicted the statements they had made in letters that President Saunders was relying on to punish DePree’s speech. When your job is on the line because administrators or faculty don’t like your speech, is this the due process you can expect? To quote Ombusdman Cannon, “probably.”