Chapter 17: Staying at an Institution Because They Want You To Leave

Chapter 17: Staying at an Institution Because They Want You To Leave

Loading...

Media is loading
 

Description

Dr. Jones first talks about the creation of C-Change, a "white version" of the InterCultural Council (of which he was a member) and a forum for a national dialogue on cancer, arising from the 1998 March on Washington for Cancer.. Next Dr. Jones notes that he stayed at MD Anderson because individuals at the institution wanted him to leave. He finally decided to leave when his resources were increasingly being turned off. He also notes Dr. Raphael Pollock's comment that "you can say more by leaving than by staying." Dr. Jones notes that nothing was being done to retain him at MD Anderson. Dr. Jones talks about his attempts to find post-retirement connections, given his reputation as an agitator. He notes that he has just received an official appointment letter from Texas A and M at Corpus Christi.

Identifier

JonesLA_03_20140130_C17

Publication Date

1-30-2014

Publisher

The Making Cancer History® Voices Oral History Collection, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

City

Houston, Texas

Topics Covered

The Interview Subject's Story - Obstacles, Challenges; Experiences re: Gender, Race, Ethnicity; Obstacles, Challenges; Post Retirement Activities

Transcript

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

It's like with the creation of the National Dialogue on Cancer, which is now C-Change, which Barbara and George Bush were the original honorary co-chairs of and got moving forward. C-Change, or the National Dialogue, is really an outgrowth of the Intercultural Cancer Council.

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

And that's C-Change?

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

C hyphen.

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

Oh, C. Oh, okay, gotcha.

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

With a hyphen. Really, I jokingly say C-Change is just, for lack of a better term, a white version of Intercultural Cancer Council, because it's based on the idea of private sector, public sector, [unclear] sector, community organizations, companies, you know, a wide range.

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

I'd never heard of C-Change before.

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

Yeah. Mendelsohn was involved in the initial starting of it, and he kind of backed out of it, and so other than myself, Anderson-the other major Comprehensive Cancer Centers have had major roles and involvement with it. Anderson, for whatever reason, has not gotten involved, and I've brought it to their attention numerous times. And in fact, two years ago when I put in for it as a group that was not a conflict of interest, they came back and told me it was a conflict of interest. This is a cancer organization that's [unclear]. How can this be a conflict in any way? That's how people interpret it. But when C-Change was being formed as the National Dialogue of Cancer, it arose out of the March on Washington for Cancer, which took place in 1998, which was held on the Mall in D.C. It involved all cancer groups, and the Intercultural Cancer Council was one of the main players. We brought in the community and all the other people that the others couldn't get in. When it came time to formally organize the organization, the word that came forth was, given that ICC was one of the main players in the formation of the March on Washington for Cancer, that it needed to have a place at the table as one of the members of the Executive Committee, but it couldn't be me. (laughs) And I turned to the co-founder and I said, "Hey, if it moves the ball, then you can be the member of it." And it was very obvious. In fact, the former executive director of ICC, we've been in contact recently on the project that I'm doing. She says, "You remember the days?" And I said, "I remember." She said, "I remember the meeting in which that was said in front of you, and," she said, "I was so embarrassed." And I said, "I didn't take it-." I said, "That's the way the world is. I could have jumped up and down and screamed and hollered and that sort of thing, but we wouldn't be where we are, where we are today, if I had jumped up, screamed, and hollered, that sort of thing.", and it would have been detrimental to the ICC to be excluded at that point in time, in terms of moving forward." There had already been enough damage done by their lack of supporting us in the way that they should have supported us, but to have them totally exclude us would not been wise. But I said, "I'm glad you remember it in the same way I remember it, and that it's not something that is a figment of my imagination." And she said, "No, I was there and I heard." She said, "I think about it in terms of your situation now at Anderson and how people have gone to extraordinary lengths to try and silence you in terms of saying what really needs to be said, and how you've taken it almost as a statesman in terms of not-." She said, "At times you've let out some really interesting emails that if I had been you I wouldn't have done, but in a way I can see why you did it, as kind of letting off steam at some point in time so you could go back to do whatever you're doing in terms of moving it forward."

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

Why did you stay at the institution?

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

Because they didn't want me to. I mean, I'm quite honest. (laughs) I used to joke and say-I used to meet with some of the lower-echelon people like Dan Fontaine [phonetic]. I would say to Dan, "You know, the best way getting rid of me is to be so nice to me over a year, I'd figure that something is happening, and I'd start fearing for my life and move on. But as long as you treat me the way you treat me, I'm going to be here." But then it became a time when the Center grant wasn't funded and the resources were being slowly turned off at the [unclear], that and when Rafe Pollock, one of my mentees, said to me, "You know, you could say more by leaving than by staying, and see how they react with you leaving. You've said that they will react in this way, and people said, no, they won't, and that sort of thing. And the only thing you could do is leave and see." And I did, and they did. So this is not surprising in terms of reaction.

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

So the timing of your retirement was determined by which factors then?

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

I think the timing was determined by initially thinking that I would move on to Texas A&M-College Station. I think the wheels of movement were put into motion, and it was an opportunity that wasn't going to be around a year later. So the wheels of motion were put into movement at that time. But when that opportunity went away, and I sat back and thought about it, I said what Rafe had said to me was really true, because nothing was being done to keep me, no effort to say, "Well, Lovell, you know given that the A&M thing-," or even when the A&M thing came about, there was no, "Well, why don't you stay?"

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

A counteroffer.

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

A counteroffer. It was, "Thank you. Don't let the door hit you going out," sort of thing. And so that, to me, clearly said-and someone else had said, "You know, you're enabling them to do what they do, because they can always point to you being here and that sort of thing." And I said, "Yeah, you're right." So I had hoped that there would have been opportunities outside in the Houston area. I had already talked to Robert Robbins [phonetic] in terms of coming and being aboard on the Texas Medical Center and that, and he did, to his credit, get me involved and continued to keep me involved in the strategic planning. But I had larger visions that I had approached him with, and I think that given the political climate and his being new, that was not within his comfort zone. And the other institutions, I think, are kind of-it's like in reviewing a grant and your having a major institution that has influence, you know, you're not going to do anything against them, but you're not going to do anything that will agitate them. And I think bringing me aboard would have been an agitant that would have put them somewhere on their radar screen. So it's interesting, I just got an official appointment letter to Texas A&M-Corpus Christi by the president and the head of the College of Science and Engineering, and one of the things that was said to me is that-it wasn't said in these words, but I think that this is the way I interpreted it, and that was, "Your value to us is greater than any irritant that could be caused, and so you don't have to move here, you can be a virtual faculty member, but you have all the privileges of being a faculty. You can still make grants. We'll give you an email address. You have library privileges, all of those things. And then you come down on an as-needed basis."

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

Well, congratulations on that.

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

Thank you.

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

Yeah. Nice perks.

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

And so I sent a note to Raymond Greenberg [phonetic] and I said, "To me, this is something easy that the UT System could have done. If a small institution, the A&M system, who should be fearful, given they're small in this big arena, made such a comment, then what does that say about you guys?" He hasn't responded yet. He may or may not. But I did send a note over to Shelly [phonetic], because she sent me a note in a follow-up to an email I sent over the Christmas holidays that got lost. She had other interests going on, and she apologized for losing it. And she said that she wanted to be involved with the training, minority training and mentoring. And I said, "The only way you can be is finding someplace for me to be engaged, because the institution has already upset them, and they've already told me, no, they don't want you involved. And I've approached them about having you involved, and their response was then if they are, then they're going to have to find something for you. Otherwise, we just move on." And I said, "That's not good, because you're talking about the largest medical complex [unclear]." And they said, "That's our decision." I said, "I [unclear] go along with your decision." So I sent a note, follow-up, with Shelly and let her know that, and she said, "I'll Brenda about what could be done." So Brenda wrote back and said, "Well, that would be an ideal position, but UT System have said that they didn't think it fit the criteria that they wanted in terms of positions." And then Shelly says, "Well, maybe you can take this up with your friends at System." So I wrote back to Francine Fredericks [phonetic], who is the lawyer for Board of Regents, and to Ray, and said, "Here's what I want to do, but here's the response back from Dr. Barton [phonetic]." And he wrote back and said, "If they want to have us revisit it with you in mind, have them come back to us." I wrote back to Shelly and I said, "I've contacted my friends, and this is what they have said. Now, I am cognizant that you serve at the pleasure of two presidents, one of who has already denied my having a relationship with his institution. The other one, I don't know. But the School of Public Health, of which he is over, has denied my having a relationship. But I just want to let you know that I did do what you said to do, and that there's an opportunity to move this forward, and so the ball is in your court." So we'll see.

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

Thank you for-the story continues with, yeah, maneuvering and-yeah, it does. Well, thank you for your time today, Dr. Jones.

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

Oh, sure.

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

And we do have another session scheduled, I believe, and I have a number of more specific things to ask you about, so I'll look forward to hearing about that.

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

It's a pleasure, as always.

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

Always, yes. So I'm turning off the recorder at about seven minutes after eleven. Thank you.

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

Okay. Have a good day.

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

Thank you. You too. I love talking to you. (laughs) (end of session three)

Conditions Governing Access

Open

Chapter 17: Staying at an Institution Because They Want You To Leave

Share

COinS