The Bengal Staff
The Bengal Newspaper received an anonymous letter that alleges “abusive treatment” by Michael Thomas, the Idaho State University Biology Department Chair and doctorate of Entomology, against multiple individuals including multiple faculty and graduate students.
Thomas denies all of the accusations and says that he thinks that the allegations are a “malicious prank.”
“We have a very happy department,” Thomas said.
The letter is signed by only a “concerned citizen” and it has no return address, phone number or email the sender could be contacted at.
The identity of the concerned citizen remains unclear, whether they’re a bystander or an alleged victim.
The letter says that the “pattern of abuse” has gone on for a year and a half and that no disciplinary actions have been taken by Idaho State University against Thomas. It also alleges a number of ISU Faculty and Administration members are aware of the department head’s behavior and haven’t taken action.
Some of the people listed in the letter as knowledgeable about the situation are Scott Snyder, Dean of the College of Science and Engineering, Matthew Wright, Title IX Coordinator and ISU President Kevin Satterlee.
The concerned citizen claims that Snyder has recommended an extension of three years to Thomas’ appointment as Chair of the Department of Biological Sciences.
“The nature of the abusive behavior Dr. Thomas inflicted upon multiple individuals ranged from unjustified threats of job security, age discrimination, verbal and psychological abuse, insults, attacks on self-esteem, denigration, public humiliation, threatening aggressive behaviors, abuse of power, harassment, intimidation, bullying, damaged reputations, creation of a hostile work environment and retaliatory actions,” the letter alleges.
The concerned citizen listed no specific examples of abuse by Thomas.
The letter alleges that “a disproportionate number of women” have been victims. There is no mention of sexual abuse or any criminal actions by Thomas.
An ISU biology professor who works with Dr. Thomas confirmed to The Bengal that they believe these allegations to be true, although they would prefer to remain anonymous.
The allegations would have gone on for many months, but the concerned citizen said that only recently have people filed formal complaints with the ISU Title IX office, under the Office of Equity and Inclusion.
“It is likely that as more individuals became aware of others experiencing the abusive treatment from Dr. Thomas, this may have prompted more individuals to officially submit complaints to ISU,” the concerned citizen said.
Wright, the Title IX coordinator, confirmed that a total of five complaints against Thomas have been formally filed and that he’s spoken with a total of nine or ten people about the matter.
“The people who have come forward have had interpersonal experiences with Michael Thomas that they would characterize as negative,” Wright said. He also confirmed that most of the people who have complained have been women but that men have come forward as well.
Wright could not divulge specific information about the content of any of the complaints to protect the anonymity of the people who filed. He’s not aware of any current investigations into Thomas’ behavior, but his office has looked into the complaints.
“We’ve looked into everything we’ve received,” Wright said. “Anything can change tomorrow, it’s hard to say, but we have looked into the complaints that were brought to us last semester.”
Thomas isn’t aware of any formal complaints against him and doesn’t consider the allegations reliable due to the anonymity of the source. He was confused by the allegations because he claims that as a department chair he doesn’t have the power to hire or fire staff.
Stuart Summers, Associate Vice President, said that department chairs work closely with Human Resources to address concerns about staff members. There are also different rules of termination for different positions of staff members, like the distinction between temporary employees and tenured faculty.
Snyder said he can not respond to anonymous allegations.
“If you are able to identify the source of the complaint, any story you chose to run will have credibility in a way that an anonymous source will not,” Snyder said.
Snyder neither confirmed nor denied the letter’s claim that he recommended three more years to Thomas’ appointment.
Stacey Gibson, Director of the Office of Equity and Inclusion, who was not included in the letter as knowledgeable of the allegations, said that any student, faculty or staff member can file a complaint with her office and they’ll investigate to determine the veracity of the claim. They work closely with Human Resources, Academic Affairs, and the Office of the Dean of Students on all complaints filed.
Summers issued an official university statement on the allegations.
“Idaho State University is committed to the safety and well-being of all students, faculty, and staff. We take all allegations of misconduct very seriously, and we will always take steps to ensure a thorough and complete review of allegations and evidence is undertaken.”
The statement specifically cited the Idaho Public Records Act and Idaho State University Policy 3140 which doesn’t permit them to comment on the specifics of the matter.
“The University carefully considers all complaints reported either through the Office of Equity Inclusion, Human Resources, or Internal Audit. When we identify areas of the University that need to be improved, we will always take that as an opportunity to provide a better working and learning environment.”
The letter threatened to contact other local media sources with these allegations if we did not publish this story in a timely manner, although this is not why we decided to run this story.
The Bengal has not been able to make contact with anyone who has officially filed a complaint against Dr. Thomas.
Anyone who can confirm or deny these allegations, or has any more information on this story is encouraged to call (208) 221-9547 or email ude.usinull@swengb or ude.usinull@efilgb.
–
Further thoughts from The Bengal on biology chair allegations:
The Bengal, as a unanimous editor’s decision, decided to publish this story and the contents of the letter we received because we see it as our journalistic duty to report on any kind of news on the Idaho State University campus. We are not attempting to slander anyone listed in the story, and wish the best for everyone that is a part of the Idaho State University community.
Mental abuse of young people trying to find their way into a career is unforgivable. But, “donuts with the complicit dean” goes a long way in suppressing my anger. So keep those donuts keep coming, Scott.
And who doesn’t love coffee with the commander in chief.
In fact, if the provost would jump in with such pacification, there is no telling what I could be willing to ignore. The abusive chair can even bring an electric cattle prod to school and I’ll hardly even notice if you guys will add “pizza with the provost” to the lineup.
The free blankets from SAB last week already helped me to forget whatever it was that this article was about.
I think we should have a soul-searching self-recalibration towards excellence. We’re nowhere near yet in any kind of condition to be drawing attention to ourselves with this roar business. Sadly yet evidently, before we can even begin innovating in the general direction of excellence, we first have some nasty vermin to eradicate. Anybody know a good exterminator? Do they teach that in law school?
There are scores of qualified academic leaders out there. Hundreds of potential deans and chairs.
Thank you, Bengal. You’re doing just exactly what we need you to do. We don’t need perfection, we just need a little journalistic gumption to shed some light where entrenched powers are hiding secrets that harm the institution.
Hiding secrets that harm the institution.
That harm the institution.
Boise State, and U of U, and Utah State, and U of I, and Montana State all feel a couple hundred miles closer this morning.
The naïvety of people being hung up on the anonymity thing is making me laugh.
These people have obviously never been in the position of being a whistleblower hoping to fix a broken system whilst practicing sensible risk minimization strategy.
It rarely ever goes well for the kid who couldn’t see the emperor’s new clothes per the old parable. Often it goes quite badly.
Many have learned how to profit in the darkness and they intend to protect their status quo.
Anonymity here is common sense minimization/management of high-probability retaliation risk.
Anybody who doesn’t understand that has doubtless never had the courage of their convictions on any topic in their sanctimonious lives.
It does not take courage to say things anonymously. Anyone can do that, regardless of true motivation behind the comments.
To the commenter who just wrote “It does not take courage to say things anonymously. Anyone can do that, regardless of true motivation behind the comments.”
Your are struggling under confused notions of what is or is not logic.
Let us help you.
Just because anonymous comments can indeed be made without courage does not in any way imply inverse inferences that either all anonymous comments are ipso facto made without courage or that courageous people would not ever make use of anonymous communication.
But thank you for playing; here’s your participation award.🏅
You are assigning altruistic motives to the anonymous letter-writer. Almost a martyr. When in reality, he/she could be just someone petty with an axe to grind who is too chicken to say what he/she has to say openly.
To the commenter who just wrote “ You are assigning altruistic motives to the anonymous letter-writer. Almost a martyr. When in reality, he/she could be just someone petty with an axe to grind who is too chicken to say what he/she has to say openly.”
Wow. There is an immense amount of stupid around here.
I’ll tell you who has courage… Kevin Saterlee has courage for stepping into this mess and hoping to improve it, maybe even all the way up to the level of mediocrity.
The power of an online anonymous mob. A beautiful thing.
Just keep repeating the word “anonymous” over and over. It will confuse some readers.
But, while I entertain myself trolling you numbskulls, Kevin is digging in.
We will see.
I came here to add my experience about Michael Thomas, which I will do, but there seems to be an overwhelming amount of people that have experienced the negativity he brings. Perhaps, all of us should also write a letter to the President of the University detailing our experiences so these injustices aren’t just swept under the rug. I wasn’t abused by Michael Thomas, but I certainly feel for the individuals that have been. I am sorry you all went through what you did.
I don’t have an abuse story, but I have a story to show his incompetence. (With attached e-mail evidence!)
Michael Thomas was my advisor and department chair when I got my degree in Biology. I went to him multiple times for advising to ensure I would achieve my minor. I have the e-mail chain to prove it.
(I added a minor because of his advice. Went a year longer to achieve the minor, and thanks to him I don’t have a minor and definitely doubled my debt because of it. Yay…)
In an upper division Biology Class (for this minor), Michael Thomas walked in at the end of class and I had to walk by him to leave the class. The professor sensed I was not very happy to see Michael Thomas and asked what was wrong, I explained that I went to ISU for an extra year trying to add a Minor that the department chair (M.Thomas) couldn’t even advise properly.
To my surprise several students in the class spoke up and said their minors had been messed up by him too. The professor asked everyone who’s degrees got messed up to raise there hands, it was definitely over 50% of the students in my class who raised their hands.
If you’re head of the department, you should be able to advise on a Minor. ISU knows how to pick em…
Here’s a link to the e-mail where he admits failing: https://ibb.co/WfqNkzM
You can see Dr. Smith is competent vs. THE CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT.
I realize I got an “I’m so sorry” from him, but I met with over 3 times specifically to make sure my minor would count at graduation. “I’m so sorry” doesn’t return my time, money, or effort. Nor does it help the other students affected by misguidance.
He should DEFINITELY be removed for all of the abuse he’s done to staff and students, but also he’s just plain incompetent.
Thank you so much for sharing your experience. The president has received letters and has had meetings. Please, please, please, if you feel safe doing so, consider emailing him and sharing your experience with him.
Although sad, this description shows a failure on several fronts. First, the student failed to read the college catalog. All students have a responsibility to read the catalog. Dr. Smith did not refer the student to some mysterious hidden rule, but one clearly published in the catalog. The university degree audit system was not working properly, as apparently it was filling in the wrong courses. Students and advisors should be able to rely on the system. If the info in the system is wrong, it should be corrected.
Given the overwhelming chorus of “we already knew he was abusive” in the comments below, I’d say the article title was restrained.
The article title should have been:
“Chair still abusive, Dean & Provost still complicit, new President MIA… but you already knew all that… ‘cause we’re ISU”
This might be my favorite comment. 100% accurate. I’m glad “cause ISU” is still a thing. I remember posting all the broken stuff (including our chairs) at graduation and tagging “cause ISU” to the graduation picture page.
But on a serious note, it’d be cool if we didn’t let abusive people continue abusing people.
Thank you Bengal news. A free press bringing truth into the light looks so good in print.
For all of you worried about someone’s life or career being “ruined”, that’s already been happening to too many people in Dr. Thomas’s path. This ends now! Right President Satterlee?
One can only bring “truth” to light if reporting on verified facts, not unverified anonymous allegations. This is the kind of stuff libel suits are made of. My guess is that ISU’s legal counsel is trying to figure out how to avoid one of those lawsuits considering the unverified allegations printed by the student newspaper and the public comments made by the Title IX Coordinator.
The funny thing about slander and libel is that they have to include false statements. Unfortunately, there is nothing funny about the horrendous character and behavior of Michael Thomas. These reports are not inaccurate. They simply enlighten the University about a very dark corner of this campus.
The thing is, this isn’t libel. They never said he was abusive. They said they received a letter claiming it, verified that reports have been made to Title IX, but never flat out said he was abusive. The fact these things exist is true.
They reprinted allegations from an anonymous letter. Reports by themselves do not provide sufficient corroboration. Not by a long-shot. The university did not say what the reports were about, and it was certainly not said that the investigations led to findings of violation of Title IX.
Take any individual who has worked in a supervisory role for any length of time, and give people a free-for-all forum to bash the individual anonymously online, they will do so. It is human nature.
Take any individual who has worked under a coercive, abusive, intimidating supervisor within a system struggling under long-known systemic leadership failure for any length of time, and give them a free-for-all forum to speak truth anonymously online, they will do so because they’re afraid of retaliation. It is basic human survival nature.
Mike… is that you?
No, it’s not MIke. It is someone who is following this disaster of a story. Based on this approach, ISU should change its formal performance evaluation system to include anonymous comments for all staff, professors, and administrators. A free-for-all. Set up an online system where anyone can submit stuff anonymously, chime in multiple times, upping the ante every time, and say whatever they want. I think tenure should be based on it. Why stop there? Heck, they should implement it for students. Anonymous comments on student performance. Their grades should be based on the anonymous comments.
I graduated from Biosciences at ISU two years ago…I thought it was common knowledge Michael Thomas is abusive? It was when I went to ISU.
I was advised to not do my Master’s there because I’d end up with him. Happily at LSU now. 🙂
I feel bad for faculty defending him, they must be really blind. The wolf has pulled wool over your eyes.
When the title of your article starts with “anonymous letter alleges” and your article ends with “anyone who can confirm or deny these allegations” should contact The Bengal, you should really stop and do some self-reflection before deciding to print it.
Fully 65% of comments below directly confirm (primary source) and another 25% strongly corroborate (secondary source) the article. These add to the suite of pre-article Title IX actions.
Anonymous comments on an article writing about allegations in an anonymous letter corroborate nothing only further muddy the water and potentially expose the university to liability. There have been no relevant “pre-article Title IX actions” as the Title IX Coordinator stated that they looked into every complaint. “Interpersonal experiences” do not necessarily constitute Title IX violations, as Title IX does not legislate civility, manners, or tact. The Title IX Coordinator must have found the complaints unsubstantiated or must have determined that they did not even involve Title IX issues. Either way, he should not have commented on them.
Excellent article and reporting.
There are politics at every university, ISU is no exception. But casualties should never involve students.
There is documented history and widespread knowledge of problem behavior by Dr. Michael Thomas, the chairman of the ISU Biological Sciences department, with both students and faculty.
Collectively, Dr. Michael Thomas, Dr. Scott Snyder, and Dr. Laura Woodworth Ney have failed ISU students. Mr. Kevin Satterlee, what will you do?
As a member of the ISU faculty, I apologize to the victims of this abuse, which never should have happened, and definitely should not have been allowed to continue to happen.
I am a professor in the College of Science and Engineering, and the parent of two soon to be college aged kids. I have told them both not to consider going to ISU. Dean Snyder and his good friends Michael Thomas and Provost Laura Woodworth Ney are not competent for their positions and are utterly toxic. President Satterlee needs to show some leadership and fire them forthwith. Instead, we hear about the new “I” on Red Hill, adjustments to the athletic program, a new alumni center, a ridiculous “rebranding campaign” run by some expensive Boise PR firm, and a bunch of “Roar, Bengals, Roar!” signs put up everywhere. Our only hope in fixing our enrollment problem is to fix Academic Affairs. Academics is the heart of the University, not some incidental, parasitic operation. President Satterlee, you have wasted a year and a half. If you get to it immediately, we will try to support you. If you continue on this same path, ISU will fail.
https://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/
Forbes magazine ranks the top colleges and universities in America. But, they only rank the top 650. ISU doesn’t make the cut for top 650. We’re not even on the list.
We have two decades of seriously competent leadership and hard work ahead of us just to climb into the lower tier of national mediocrity.
That new “I” on Red Hill? It stands for insignificant.
Maybe roars will drown out the laughter.
Of course you’re not sending your kids here. ISU can’t even make the Forbes ranking of top 650 colleges/universities in America. 650?! And we’re not on the list. There are preparatory high schools in America that would beat ISU in a head-to-head comparison. The “I” on Red Hill? For “Insignificant?” The roaring? To drown out the laughter? Has this place ever had leadership?
This disaster is the result of Laura Woodworth Nye’s “leadership.” She learned at the feet of Vailas to divide the world into friend and foe. Friends are given positions of power and responsibility, regardless of their qualifications. Friends are shielded and protected from accountability. Their job, in turn, is to compliment and support the “Great Leader.” The foe, including any student or faculty who expresses loyal dissent or complains about their treatment, is ignored, intimidated or punished. Scott Snyder, the Dean of the College of Science and Engineering is a friend of Provost Woodworth Nye. He will be protected at all costs, as will his friends. The kinds of incidents reported by The Bengal will continue until Woodworth Nye and her cohort of “friends” are forced to leave ISU.
For all of those blatantly dismissing the true victims of Mike Thomas, CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE.
Sure, he may be great to you. He may be your best friend. But YOU are in a position of privilege. YOU do not work beneath this man. YOU do not suffer from any power he holds over you. YOU do not know the monster he turns into when the door is closed. YOU do not know what it is like to be threatened by him, harassed by him, tormented by him.
He targets students, staff, and non-tenured faculty. We do not have the privileges you do. But we deserve to feel safe, supported, and welcome in our place of work. Michael Thomas is incapable of doing this. He sees us as targets that he can attack. And he does. Just because YOU have not experienced it, does not mean it isn’t happening.
So, I’ll say again, CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE!
Thank you, Bengal News for reporting on this very serious matter.
These people don’t realize what a master manipulator Thomas is. He curries support from some, oppresses others. And not just the people below him. Thomas has Snyder eating out of his hands, obviously. Everybody who has dealt with Thomas on any level has been manipulated, most of you just don’t realize it. We should create a new department of coercion and manipulation, a place to train the next generation of right wing radio hosts; Thomas should definitely be the chair of that department.
Really great point. He is a master manipulator. He is an expert gas-lighter.
Thank you for publishing this story. This is what the free press is for. Let’s right some wrongs here ISU so the healing process can begin. Dr. Thomas should not be in any position of power where he’s allowed to inflict anymore damage.
The only thing that this story is missing is very clear directions for victims and witnesses of abusive behavior by Dr. Thomas. For those who have not come forward yet where exactly they can go for help.
Here’s a quick link: https://www.isu.edu/aaction/
Now’s your time to speak up and protect future students, faculty and staff. A little light is shining on the truth. You are not alone.
Good journalism. I have been aware of this situation for more than six months and can assure all readers that the number of actually abused is more than twice the number that filed formal complaints. This is serial behavior well known to the dean, provost and president. This problem lingers only because the dean defends this person against all obvious evidence. A top university would have fixed this already. A qualified dean would have fixed this already.
Amen. I remember two years agree the new president Kevin Saterlee was delivering messages saying he will try to make enrollment number 1. Hey Kevin, if students are being exposed to this boys club of Thomas and Snyder, you will decrease enrollment.
Does ISU have a president of action? Or just a president of rebranding and pep talks? The SBOE is watching. Idaho parents are watching.
I am an alumni from the Bio Dept and I have personally sat with multiple students of Dr. Thomas as they cried and voiced their frustrations at the abuse and mistreatment that they received from “negative interactions” with Dr. Thomas. I am surprised that the article mentioned that this behavior has been going on for a year and a half, as I am aware of maltreatment that took place prior to his promotion to Dept Chair. I would estimate that this has been a pattern easily extending back 3-4 years or more. Kudos to the brave people coming forward and in effect saying, “No More!”
To The Bengal-Was your purpose to perpetuate hurt or promote healing here? I’m not clear. For such a high impact piece, I think you should be more clear about your intentions and motivations in running such an article. I agree with those below that criticize the journalistic integrity of the bengal because I see very little actual investigation into either side presented. We don’t know what measures may have been taken to resolve and address these complaints or on the outcomes of these situations. If truly none has been taken, then the university is at fault, but we don’t know. However, I think it is a mistake to leave the public to speculate on connections and form opinions without more direct investigation.
I wonder what is the intention of the concerned citizen? What is their or your agenda here? To hold the university accountable? To discipline Dr. Thomas? To get the people’s story heard? Is the intention aligned with the complainants’ intentions and feelings? It seems to me like the outcome of this article is to forcing the public to take sides. In doing so it either forces some to publicly invalidate the experiences of those hurt in order to defend a university leader, or to denounce based on little direct information on the outcomes of these situations. It is important to hold the university accountable, and to do so in a responsible manner.
If the Bengal would like to write a story about retaliation and bullying at ISU, they should look to KDHS and CAL. There is a culture of fear and retaliation alive and well. It is a sad state of affairs when so many faculty live in fear of their College administration every day.
Yep– let’s pile on and distract from this piece and make veiled accusations to muddy the waters. Really, vaguebooking should be reserved for pitiful pleas on FB.
As a faculty member I agree that many are afraid to speak up for fear of retaliation. There is a lot of fear if the Bengal wants to go look for it.
ISU has handled abuse and harassment so poorly. It’s rampant throughout the institution. It’s not just biology, but right now the focus is on biology. Maybe this will lead to widespread change.
Retaliation is very, very real. If you disagree with the management, you do so knowing that you are going to be retaliated against. My personnel evaluations show this.
Based on some of the comments, I thought it might help to clarify a few things the reporters weren’t able to get right as outsiders of the Bio Department.
As others have noted, Mike is a pathological liar. If you have met him in passing, you may have found him pleasant and charming. That is his public face. If you have spent any time with him or had a conversation in which you were trying to problem-solve a situation, you likely saw his true personality. It’s a bit uglier and typically involves irrational and unexpected outbursts of rage, threats, intimidation, lies, and manipulation. As he is very devoted to protecting his public image and an appearance of a high devotion to excellence, you will only see his true face when you are alone with him and his office. This is a situation that makes you isolated and vulnerable. This is a situation that leaves you without evidence, without witnesses, and without support. These are key challenges to victims coming forward and their reports resulting in consequences. Additionally, this means several people within the Biology Department, especially new faculty hires, are completely unaware of Mike’s aggressive and abusive behavior.
Mike has powerful friends which, so far, has allowed him to remain untouchable despite the number of individuals at the University that have been notified of the issues with his behavior. Mike is close friends with Scott Snyder, the dean of CoSE and Mike’s direct supervisor. This is the man that would not acknowledge whether he supported extending Mike’s chair position, even though he made statements in our faculty meeting in support of it. Apparently, he is comfortable acknowledging his support within the department, but not publicly. Mike, Scott, and HR staff met to discuss the reports made against Mike Thomas, so clearly Mike and Scott are aware of these reports, in contrast to what some of the comments have suggested. In addition to having powerful friends, Mike grants favor to others in order to help secure his power and dominance over others. For example, the assistant chair, Janet Loxterman, has developed into quite the purveyor of misconduct herself, creating a powerful duo in the department.
Personally, I send my support to the victims and would like to warn naive Bio Dept members to beware and tread lightly.
I am an alumn from ISU, and I remember collaborating in the bio department for a little while.
Letter aside, this article makes an interesting point in that Associate Vice President Stuart Summers said that the department chair works closely with HR. But we have a discrepancy such that, Matthew Wright, the Title IX coordinator, confirmed five complaints against Dr. Mike Thomas. Dr. Mike Thomas knows nothing about these complaints.
I do think that it is definitely worrisome that Dr. Mike Thomas has no clue about these Title IX complaints. I would also assume if you were to invoke your own anonymity under Title IX, a simple “no comment” would suffice.
Dr. Mike Thomas has every right to defend himself against any allegation. I also believe that anyone who files a title IX complaint should be able to have their situation heard fully. I am not for or against Dr. Thomas, but I do believe the truth will come out with time.
Instead of relying on ad-hominem support for anyone; lets act like we went to college and objectively try to understand what this article is saying. I may also be assuming to much in how ISU deals out justice, since the RISE complex showed how inept this school can be.
If you genuinely wanted to “bring the situation to light” you should have witnesses coming forth. It is unprofessional to post this without anything proving the claims, if it was true there should be strong evidence listed in your article.
Your comment makes no sense. Witnesses ARE coming forward, and have been for many months. ISU has obviously failed to handle this situation, so now it is being moved to the public light. Bengal News cannot share confidential information from the Title IX office or HR. They’ve done a great job reporting on the issue without violating anyone further.
I know multiple people who have had extremely unprofessional and negative interactions with Dr. Thomas that could easily be characterized as abusive. None of his recent graduate students have successfully completed the program under his adviser-ship; they have all switched programs or switched advisers. That alone should be a red flag. For those of you dismissing this as fabricated information, the article confirms with Wright that five complaints have already been filed. Based on my experiences I don’t doubt these complaints are legitimate and based on the fact that the complainants want to remain anonymous and seem to fear retaliation, it seems likely that the five complainants may represent a fraction of victims, those who had the courage to come forward. Clearly, they gave the university a chance to rectify the issue by filing complaints before going to the press as a last ditch effort.
I’m astounded and deeply disappointed that the university has not addressed this issue when so many people have come forward with formal complaints. This lack of meaningful action and apparent total lack of concern for the well-being of students, staff, and faculty affected by this situation creates a poor reputation for ISU.
It makes me ashamed to be a student at ISU. I hope they stop trying to dismiss this and sweep it under the rug.
ISU, please instead take this opportunity to do the right thing and give a shit about your students for once.
Academics Marsh, Lawyer, and Sanger (and others who remain anonymous) line up behind their friend and forcefully and angrily come to his defense, saying he’s “a great guy.” They express outrage at the accusations and at the media reporting them. None of these men (who are also comfortable in their own positions of power/privilege) have seen their friend be verbally abusive/intimidating, so it can’t be true.
They say the Bengal is being “very unfair” to their friend, and maybe the students at the Bengal should “be better educated” because they are very unethical. My goodness, their posts are so similar to the president’s defenses of his friends’ behavior (Rob Porter, Brett Kavanaugh, Weinstein, and his own actions) that it’s impossible to tell the difference. Nobody who reads this thread can believe that academics are just “lefty liberals.” Nope, when power and authority are challenged, the gloves come off and the media and the victims are attacked. It is, frankly, pitiful.
News Flash: people who have experienced these events are typically in low-power positions and can’t go public without fear of retribution.
News Flash 2: just because YOU haven’t witnessed the behavior doesn’t make the people who are coming forward “liars.” It means maybe you don’t have all the information.
What’s clear here is that more information needs to come out and I hope that victims will feel protected now by the light of exposure so that some clarity and resolutions can be reached.
It’s amusing to me that so many people crying slander and dismissing the true victims due to the letter being anonymous…. are posting anonymous comments……
I did not share the letter, but I have experienced first hand and witnessed Mike and his abusive and terrible behavior. I have chosen to remain anonymous and not come forward due to the very real risk of retaliation and for fear of my own personal safety. Mike Thomas has abused students, faculty, and staff and chooses to target those who are in positions that do not have the job security that comes with tenure and tenure-track positions. He retaliates against anyone who attempts to help those he abuses. He threatens, manipulates, bullies, and gaslights. The anonymous letter hit the nail on the head, and I applaud the person for bravely blowing the whistle. Unfortunately, Mike is not the only bad apple in the biology department. He has support from others who are no better than him. ISU has failed in handling this matter. This has been going on for far too long. It is time to take appropriate action. Shame on those blaming the victims of this abuse.
Thank you, Bengal News, for bringing this issue to a broader audience.
Yes, thank you Bengal News for reporting this story!
I have interacted with people who have had negative interactions with Dr. Thomas. I have no doubt that there are other faculty members that are complicit in allowing this behavior to continue, but there are also “good apples” in the biology faculty that have tried to do the right thing… though their efforts seem to fall on deaf ears.
You are absolutely correct. Those good apples who step up then become targets themselves. It is a sad, very toxic and hostile environment, created by Mike. Major kudos to those who have stepped up and to those who might start stepping up now!
Shame on you – those who had a “courage” of writing and publishing this! As countries do not negotiate with terrorists, nobody should every rely on anonymous letters.
Says the person posting an anonymous comment…..
I applaud The Bengal for publishing this article. I’ve known Dr. Thomas for a number of years now, and I know him to be a pathological liar and a sneak (I was is no way a participant in the anonymous letter). I avoid interacting with him whenever possible. It doesn’t surprise me at all that his friends would pick up his bully flag in his defense and disparage student reporters. They likely don’t know the truth because they hear lies from their friend. They are right in one regard. The letter to The Bengal is only part of the story…there’s more complaints lodging against Thomas than just with the Title IX office!
As far as having sympathy for being publicly outed as a jerk and having his career ‘ruined’, I have none. Dr. Thomas has forced out a number of people who make a small fraction of his salary and who would rather save their sanity and small savings than try to hire a lawyer. Dr. Thomas already ruined his research career through poor performance, but still is paid handsomely. Don’t let his crocodile tears fool you.
As to why his supervisors haven’t taken action against him…great question. Perhaps because they are such good personal friends? They say the best offense is a good defense. Perhaps they’re trying to stave off a lawsuit or two by keeping the dirt under the rug. Or maybe they’re just trying to keep things quiet until they themselves can get another job elsewhere.
The University exists to serve the needs of the students. If you, as an employee of the university, can’t do that directly, then you’d better be serving the faculty who are skilled at that and are working their tails off doing it. It boggles the mind that this behavior is tolerated.
Kudos to The Bengal for printing this. Mr. Satterlee likes to say that his door is always open, I hope he investigates this to the full extent and I hope for a change for the better. Until then I’ll keep ducking around corners whenever I see Dr. Thomas coming my way.
As someone who has some first hand knowledge of Michael Thomas’ inappropriate behavior, I can only ask the other commenters to be sure they have the Full story before defending this individual. An associate of mine came to me about a year ago after a closed door meeting with Mike. In that meeting he berated and belittled my associate to the point that, after the meeting his secretary took my friend aside and tried to let them know that this was not their fault and that Michael had interactions like that on occasion with multiple faculty members. My associate has Not filed a complaint because of the fear of retribution but was really quite bewildered that a professional would interact in such an aggressive, verbally abusive manner.
The definition of slander goes as follows, “the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.” This article is indeed slander.
If the paper wanted attention, then why did they not just set their meeting place on fire.
Everyone in this thread who says “slander” really means “libel,” which is a written statement as opposed to spoken. Either way, the statements must be false to be considered libel or slander. There are enough corroborating statements in the article to indicate the allegations are not false.
You all just want attention. This article was written in incredibly poor taste. You should reconsider writing an article like this the next time something comes up. You are slandering someone based on false information. There is no proof, and all you did was make a very big mistake.
Typical that this would be all about the “victimization” of Dr. Thomas, not the 5 (to 9) victims who filed complaints. If the letter writer was one of the complainants I suspect she would not have gone to the press had the complaints been addressed appropriately.
How Awful… That the Bengal News thought this article was fit to print without first exercising journalistic responsibility. And then trying to cover it up with a flimsy halfhearted disclaimer at the end. I could go into more detail, but not as well as the comment already provided by Matt Sanger.
I wonder who is advising the Bengal News and why they aren’t doing a better job training these students writers on their ethical responsibilities.
Presenting anonymous, unsubstantiated accusations as legitimate even after formal university review procedures have found similar allegations to be unfounded does not fit any reasonable definition of journalistic duty. If there’s any story worth publishing here, the main focus should be that reviews from personnel and academic offices who routinely examine matters like this have found no basis for concerns like those listed in the anonymous letter. It’s worth noting as essential context that recommending a 3-year extension is the standard option for a department chair that is performing well. Thus your journalistic duty might responsibly point out, the letter does allege the very unsurprising conclusion that university leadership finds Dr. Thomas to be functioning very well in the extremely challenging role of department chair for one of the largest academic units at ISU.
Another legitimate option as the main thrust of the story would be that Dr. Thomas remains one of the most highly respected members of the ISU faculty, someone who has worked as tirelessly and selflessly as any member of the ISU community for the past 18 years to make this institution better, a place of high scholarly achievement yet supportive and embracing of an ever wider spectrum of students, staff, faculty, and community. Anonymous and vague accusations along with formal university reviews of grievances have not changed that fact.
This article is an incredibly irresponsible act on the part of the Bengal staff, and simply bad journalistic practice.
First, even considering reporting the content of an anonymous letter with allegations like those presented creates significant obligations on the part of reporters and publishers. If The Bengal feels ethically bound to report on this alleged line of abuse, the reporters needed to do much more and better journalistic work, and thus I strongly disagree with the characterization of the staff’s work as simply “reporting facts” and being done “with care.” The exact opposite is true, and “reporting facts” can be very irresponsible without adequate contextualization. To take one egregious example, The Bengal reports that Dr. Thomas has had five formal complaints filed against him. How unusual is this? What are the statistics for complaints filed against department chairs at ISU?…How about other administrators? What do we know about who files complaints at the university (including the gender balance, whether they are faculty/staff/students, and who they file complaints about)? What does it take to file a complaint of the type referred to, and what exactly happens afterwards that might be relevant to consider? You need to do your homework and not simply reach for a sensational headline, hiding behind a claim of ethical responsibility that you yourselves then undermine by not taking that responsibility seriously.
And what about the responsibility for engaging in critical thought as journalists? The anonymous letter writer alleges that a number of administrators have known about Dr. Thomas’ behavior and have not taken disciplinary action. The Bengal reports that the letter writer also alleges Dr. Thomas’ Dean (who is not only aware of, but has repeatedly and formally reviewed and evaluated his behavior as a part of his job) has recommended him for another three year term as chair. Why not probe these points further? What could possibly explain them? Perhaps the administration’s knowledge of Dr. Thomas’ behavior is precisely why no disciplinary action has been taken, despite the complaints, because those complaints were off base. Could the writer of an anonymous complaint possibly be using that anonymity to hide the fact that their claims were motivated by ignorance, vindictiveness, and/or self-interest? The Bengal staff states that one Biology Dept. faculty member anonymously claimed they believed the allegations were true, but did they offer any evidence? How many faculty and staff did The Bengal talk to? Did any faculty or staff members question the legitimacy of the allegations? Were they prompted to? Were they given a chance to?
These obvious points need to be taken seriously, and the journalistic work put into addressing them before publishing anything like what The Bengal has done here. The fact that The Bengal claims to have published this piece out of a sense of journalistic duty suggests they need to examine those duties and their implications further. Importantly, what duty requires here is not simply a matter of trying to get the information needed to properly contextualize and critically question what you have been given, if you take those duties seriously. You need to either be able to do that well or not publish. You have rushed to press and in the process recklessly endangered someone’s career and professional identity.
It’s hilarious that Michael Thomas thought this was a prank. Obviously this guy must be an awful chair if that many people complained. Way to go ISU.
I actually found this article unbiased and showed they actually investigated beyond just the letter. They interviewed multiple people and included their comments. Of course people want to be anonymous with how people are immediately jumping to “why are you slandering this person?”.
I am not even a fan of cancel culture (in fact I find it very troublesome and guilty before innocent) but this story did not slander him. It stated these accusations exist and have been corroborated with other sources.
I am very unhappy with this article. Are you kidding me? Potentially ruining a mans career based on an anonymous letter that “listed no specific examples of abuse…” What kind of terrible person would write this article? It is so wrong on many levels. Regardless if its even true, which I don’t think it is, This type of slander is uncalled for and unprofessional. Please re-evaluate your stupidity and don’t write about shit like this again.
I am not sure what your definition of “good news” is, but this is definitely not it. Please refrain from ever making this pathetic mistake of slandering a professor without any direct evidence. I would also advise proofreading and checking for punctuation errors that inhabit the article periodically. For example: “Wright, the Title IX coordinator, confirmed that a total of five complaints against Thomas have been formally filed and that he’s spoken with a total of nine or ten people about the matter.” What the authors of the article are currently presenting is that “he’s” not being used in terms of possession; it is supposed to read “he has”. He does not own “spoken”. “Spoken” is a verb. This is one of many punctuation errors ridden throughout the article. Please do the world a favor, and back up your deplorable accusations with solid evidence.
Ever heard of a contraction?
The contraction of “he’s” is directly translated to “he is” not “he has”.
So, let’s just make an article to ruin a man’s life and career. There is no reason for this article, and I’m very disappointed that someone even thought this was a good idea. I feel sorry for Dr. Thomas. Reminder for all of you that “defamation is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime.”
Was this actually necessary?
Who thought this was a good idea?
Fix your punctuation. This is the worst idea you could have come up with
This is an actual joke. It should not have been published, it makes the Bengal Newspaper look awful. It was in very poor taste to post this article. There is no proof that this is factual, and I believe it was a very bad idea.
The Bengal verified that five “formal” complaints have indeed been filed. From where I stand, that fact alone removes the idea of this being slander
This story represents an bad journalistic decision that represents a harm to the paper, the university, and to an otherwise well-liked, accomplished, and very effective Department Chair. The idea that this paper would allow this cowardly approach to airing grievances toward an individual–which avoids the accountability associated with ISU’s legitimate avenues for verifying and addressing complaints–is an egregious affront to due process and truth. That being said, I suppose it is good to know that anyone can use the Bengal newspaper to raise concerns about someone they don’t like without being inconvenienced by any sort of accountability. After all would that not represent ‘any kind of news on the Idaho State University campus’?
The student journalists at the Bengal news are following their journalistic duty to report on alleged abuse; it would have been unethical and irresponsible NOT to write this story. Moreover, this article was unbiased and never took sides— they only reported the facts. AND the fact that Title IX confirmed that five different individuals have come forward with complaints about Michael Thomas suggests that this isn’t just someone “airing grievances towards an individual” and it shows that there are likely very serious issues within the Biological Sciences Department.
The student journalists at the Bengal clearly did their job and they did it with care.