Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 41 of total 41 in this topic |
cjain
Mountain climber
Lake Forest, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Aug 5, 2006 - 03:37pm PT
|
(From http://www.storyarts.org/library/aesops/stories/boy.html Commentary follows)
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, "Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!"
The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces.
"Don't cry 'wolf', shepherd boy," said the villagers, "when there's no wolf!" They went grumbling back down the hill.
Later, the boy sang out again, "Wolf! Wolf! The wolf is chasing the sheep!" To his naughty delight, he watched the villagers run up the hill to help him drive the wolf away.
When the villagers saw no wolf they sternly said, "Save your frightened song for when there is really something wrong! Don't cry 'wolf' when there is NO wolf!"
But the boy just grinned and watched them go grumbling down the hill once more.
Later, he saw a REAL wolf prowling about his flock. Alarmed, he leaped to his feet and sang out as loudly as he could, "Wolf! Wolf!"
But the villagers thought he was trying to fool them again, and so they didn't come.
At sunset, everyone wondered why the shepherd boy hadn't returned to the village with their sheep. They went up the hill to find the boy. They found him weeping.
"There really was a wolf here! The flock has scattered! I cried out, "Wolf!" Why didn't you come?"
An old man tried to comfort the boy as they walked back to the village.
"We'll help you look for the lost sheep in the morning," he said, putting his arm around the youth, "Nobody believes a liar...even when he is telling the truth!"
===
'Pass the Pitons' Pete wrote:
"need your input on this asap please! This story is true. Can you please offer your input right now? ...
"I have a friend who is in a huge moral dilemma. His entire career and livelihood are on the line. Most likely he will be required to provide an answer on Monday, so there is a deadline....
"Responses please, and hurry!
Pete"
===
Pete,
Should you REALLY urgently need help for a friend in the future, I wish my response would be less cynical then I fear it would be.
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
I'm sorry if I upset anyone. That was clearly not my intent. I wrote the post about Richard to make you think.
He has been shat upon for years, and it was the single story I could tell about him that shows he is a man of integrity.
In my defense I had NO IDEA the volume of responses the post would receive - that truly amazed me.
I am also aware that this sort of thing can affect my credibility negatively, but if that's what it costs me to "stand in the gap" for my friend, then I will accept that.
I seldom troll my lure for fish, but I have been a successful angler all my life. In this instance, at least I used barbless hooks. I try to practise "catch and release" whenever possible. My post was not mean-spirited. If you are one who has been caught, and this offends you, I do apologize.
Peter Zabrok
Oakville, Ontario
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
St. Louis
|
|
No offense taken here. I don't view any of this as personal.
But, there appears to be far more to the episode than was mentioned in your post (see links posted on the original).
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Thanks Pete. Apology Accepted.
Peace
Karl
|
|
cjain
Mountain climber
Lake Forest, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 5, 2006 - 04:46pm PT
|
Pete writes:
"In my defense I had NO IDEA the volume of responses the post would receive - that truly amazed me."
Yeah, isn't is amazing how quickly to people are to drop everything and come to a friend (or in this case, a friend of a friend) in true need? (I'm being sarcastic.)
This board is full of troll postings and I am not easily offended, but I found your post to be offensive in a way that most trolls are not.
I sense that you honestly surprised and disturbed that you offended people and you honestly regret it. So I accept your apology.
But I do not sense you "get it" as why your post is offensive.
EDIT: Pete, your post did raise a very interesting issue and led to a very interesting thread, but I think you the thread could have been equally successful (over a longer period of time) without the false urgency.
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
I agree - the false urgency was a mistake. I completely underestimated the McTopo community's willingness to respond. I really just expected a few hits, and I remain overwhelmed and thankful for your heartfelt and immediate responses from so very many people!
Many thanks.
Edit: I subsequently tried to remove the "urgent" bit from the title, but the forum doesn't let you edit that part.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
I stand amazed. Where to even begin to respond to all this???
First, I did tell Pete that his email pointing out this thread to me had me in tears, but probably not for the reason you might think. Actually, the reason is that Pete's email (and what he was clearly trying to accomplish in this thread) so clearly revealed to me what a friend Pete has become. Readers looking at the past WoS threads will clearly see that Pete wasn't cutting us any slack, so Mark and I were honestly concerned that Pete's "SA attempt" was going to be a sandbag, where he "reported" the "party line," and the same old song and dance about the route would continue. We went down to the Valley to offer some beta on the route in the hopes that Pete would prove to be an honest guy, and we found that he, Tom, and Randy were much more than that. We came away from that time together as friends, and Pete's email pointing out this thread really touched me as I saw the depth of his understanding of me. So, whatever has been Pete's "error" in this effort, I understand what he was trying to accomplish for me, and that I very much appreciate.
Now, of course, as I saw what this thread was about, I clearly realized that this would open up yet another can of worms. (I have been at Smith Rocks from Friday, until just now, which is why I haven't posted anything sooner.) So, what I am going to do in the next post (that will take some time to compose) is produce a synopsis of the events, which you can take as you will. I don't intend to get dragged into a game of accounting for why I did x instead of y, and I guess people will form whatever opinions of my character they want. But I'm not going to start fighting on two fronts: WoS and WWC. Mark and I decided to fight hard about WoS about 1 1/2 years ago on these threads, and the truth is coming out. However, I don't intend to "fight hard" to rationalize my actions at WWC. The only reason I am even attempting to clarify matters at this point is that I honor Pete for what he started here, and there have been some really honest and inciteful replies on this thread that I honor as well. So, in the next post, I'll outline the story.
|
|
Mimi
Trad climber
Seattle
|
|
All hail the subman! Submerge before him!
I've never read such praise written about a subman before.
Peace and love.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Ok, I was hired at Walla Walla College (WWC) as a tenure-track philosophy professor under the History and Philosophy department. WWC is a Seventh-day Adventist, four-year university, and I had always thought that philosophy and Adventism made a good fit. I have always thought of myself as a philosopher first, a Christian second, and a Seventh-day Adventist third (order of logical priority). So, although I was a non-tenure-track instructor at Cal. State University at San Bernardino at the time, I jumped at the chance to teach philosophy at an SDA university. (I should say that I took a cut in pay to do so, and I was very highly regarded at CSUSB, so could have had my job there indefinitely.)
Everything went great at WWC for the first year. I got superb peer and student evaluations. However, from the first interview for the job, I made it clear that I have an "industry standard" academic integrity policy: If I catch a student cheating or plagiarizing, that student fails the course--not the assignment--they fail the course.
Now, I did research both before and after my WWC experience, and other academics at major universities will concur that my policy is extremely widespread. In fact, when I taught at U.C. Santa Barbara, I caught one guy cheating by looking at answers under the bill of his cap. I talked with my department and they agreed that he must fail the course. I then submitted my report of the incident to UCSB's academic standards committee, and after reviewing the incident (it was this poor kid's first offense), they concluded that I had made the policy so clear, and the kid had so blatantly violated it, that they actually expelled the kid. So, for ONE incident of cheating, this kid would find himself having trouble getting admitted to any major university in this country.
So, I went to WWC with this policy in hand, I clarified it and its implications during my interviews, and I utilized it to fail a number of students during that first year.
I should also mention that I would spend the first TWO lectures of each quarter explaining the principles of academic integrity and intellectual honesty to my students. I handed out a multi-page document outlining the various ways a person might plagiarize, and I carefully explained WHAT would happen to anyone I caught doing it and WHY my policy was that "harsh." I also encouraged students to come to me if they had the slightest question about what they were writing, so I could help them cite correctly and cast their own ideas in their best light. My students have always rated me at the top of the scale for accessibility, so nobody could ever claim that I cut them loose to fend for themselves; I have always be a very helpful teacher. Every person I caught at WWC admitted that they fully understood the policy and had just decided to risk it.
Enter the girl I will call M.E.
M.E.'s paper was such babbling horse byproducts that I initially called her in just to try to help her, to try to figure out with her what she had been trying to say. Within minutes she admitted that her history-graduate boyfriend basically told her what to write, and she just wrote it: "He was just talking out his ass, and I wrote whatever he told me. I really didn't understand any of it." I asked her if she realized that this was plagiarism in the sense that she was presenting someone else's ideas as though they were her own. She said, "Yes, I guess I though something like that at the time, but I just had no idea how to start this paper." I said, "M., didn't you hear me offering help, even outlining help, when I gave this paper assignment?" She said, "Yeah, but I just didn't have time to come in." Well, you get the drift.
I told her that I was going to write up a synopsis of what we had discussed and that I wanted her to come in the next day to look it over and sign it if it seemed accurate to her (a policy I had used repeatedly at CSUSB, and which the academic dean there had circulated as THE WAY to handle things because of its lawsuit protection value). I told her that I would rework that document with her as much as necessary to properly capture what had transpired between us.
When she came in to look the document over, as before, there was not the slightest hint of remorse. Instead, she began angling for a "sentence reduction." "If I sign this, will you give me another chance, or are you just going to fail me no matter what?"
I replied, "M., my policy is clear, and you knew it. I offered help, but you didn't take it. You knew the risk you were taking, and you took it. I am sorry, really, but you ARE going to fail this course."
She replied, "Well, then there's no point to me signing anything, is there?"
I said, "I am going to file this document along with my grade, so I'm seriously giving you the opportunity to help me shape it to be the most accurate from your perspective. But, whether you help in that process or not, and whether you sign it or not, SOME version of this document is going to the academic standards committee. This document has nothing to do with the result of your plagiarism, but I am giving you the opportunity to contribute to the perspective that the academic standards committee gets."
She then looked the document over and said, "Yeah, I guess this about says it right." So I asked her if she would sign it as it stood, and she agreed. She left, I filed my failing grade, submitted the document, and thought the incident was closed.
Next post, I'll turn to the results of this little matter....
|
|
Mimi
Trad climber
Seattle
|
|
Oh please let me introduce you to Lois!
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
Pete, I posted to your "cry" for help but am not offended. Funny, I thought at the time it was related to WoS but I didnt understand the angle. Glad you made some buds on your ascent, guess it was not a failure at all!
madbolter, it is appalling that a "religious" school in little old Walla Walla would lower itself to such low regard for personal honesty in the quest for cash...I bet smith rocks was warrrmmm to say the least?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
The first I realized that the M.E. incident would be different from other such failings was when the V.P. for Academic Affairs (Provost in other institutions) called me in to explain a "little problem" he was having with the incident.
As the Provost made it clear, M.E.'s daddy was a significant contributor to WWC, and he had expressed his fury that his daughter had been failed for a "first offense" like this. He considered my policy unduly harsh and "unChristlike," and he had made it clear that he "would not support an institution that so reflected an unChristlike spirit in its handling of the errors of people."
I asked the Provost, "Is he aware of how CAREFULLY and clearly my policy is stated? Does he realize that my policy is academically mainstream and that I am not some sort of ultra-harsh whacko for having a policy like this? Does he realize how flagrantly his daughter plagiarized and that she ADMITTED to it?"
The Provost swept all this aside: "It really doesn't matter. He is determined that this failing grade be removed, and the cleanest thing would be for you to just change her grade. You can cite 'administrative error' as your reason, because professors make tabulation and other errors all the time."
I replied, "So, let me be clear about this. You're asking me to make an exception in my policy for this one girl (a policy YOU have supported until now), and you're asking me to lie about why I'm changing her grade?"
He said, "I don't really care HOW your rationalize it, but the grade has got to be changed."
I said, "Changed to WHAT? I mean, seriously, at this point, even if she failed JUST that paper, she would fail the class. So, you're asking me to literally just make up a grade. Is he going to be happy with a C or a D? Or, are we really buying a vowel here?"
To this, the Provost began getting livid: "Use your judgment! You have to have SOME idea of what sort of grade she could have gotten!"
I replied, "I don't think she could have gotten an A, but beyond that, anything is possible! I mean, since I'm just making up a paper score now, why shouldn't I give it 100%? And, WHY can't she just take the course over again, like other students, and then the passing grade WILL replace this failing grade?"
The Provost said, "You have a very unChristlike spirit right now! Christ ALWAYS tried to redeem people, and you seem bent on condemning them! Why can't you just give this girl a break in this case?"
I replied, "Because I haven't given ANY other students a break like you suggest, and I think that those of them without rich daddies would be pretty unhappy to learn that grades can be bought at this institution. I BELIEVE in academic integrity! I have paid my own dues in its service. How can I talk to my own students about intellectual honesty in a philosophical context if I can be bought the way you are suggesting? My policy is mainstream, as you know, and I advertise my policy better than anyone I have ever heard of. This girl took the risk, she got caught, and, I'm sorry, but she's going to pay the price to the extend I have anything to say about it."
The Provost then began an over one-hour long tirade about my character, my motivations, and my unChristlike spirit that was shocking in its depth, thoroughness, and scope.
I went away from that meeting reeling, and called some of my friends from UCSB and from CSUSB. All told me to start looking for a lawyer and that I should investigate grievance procedures on campus, because the Provost was acting completely inappropriately and things were going to get really ugly.
Before I could do any of that, however, the Provost called me into another meeting, this time with the Associate VP for Academic Affairs, who was also the head of the academic standards committee. This gentleman informed me that M.E. had filed an official request to have her "grade expunged from her official transcript," thereby making it appear that she had never even taken the course. The Associate VP wanted me to appear before the academic standards committee to defend my grade and explain why I would not simply change it.
I submitted multiple documents to that committee and appeared before it at least twice. During those proceedings, one member of the committee resigned for two reasons: 1) one of the committee members had helped M.E. draft her petition and yet refused to recuse herself from the proceedings affecting that very petition; 2) the entire mess was purely and entirely the result of the college being in effect extorted by a wealthy father. The person cited how mainstream my policy was, how it had never come into question prior to this incident, and how I was now being cast as the bad guy in what should have been a no-brainer fail.
To no avail, the falsely so-called "academic standards" committee granted M.E.'s request, and expunged my course from her "official" transcript--thus clearly stating the transcripts at WWC are up for bid.
Meanwhile, the Associate Provost and the Provost called me into the Provost's office repeatedly in attempts to cow me into submission on the matter, since it would be "so much cleaner" if I would just change the grade.
As the thing developed, I became more and more determined to not capitulate, as I saw the incident as threatening every foundation of what I have held dear in academia....
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
At the suggestion of my friends, I took the "academic standards" committee, and the Provost to the grievance committee to attempt to undo this damage via internal campus processes.
That committee found that the "academic standards" committee HAD overstepped its authority in expunging my course from M.E.'s transcript, but also found that the Provost had been acting appropriately in his attempts to coerce me into changing the grade (mixed messages if ever I heard them!).
Meanwhile, I heard from a good friend of mine, privy to the inner workings of the President's Cabinet, that the Provost had decided that I had to go and to "watch my back."
This entire process took most of my second year to work through, and near the end of that year, the Chair of the History and Philosophy department called me into his office to tell me that my contract would not be renewed.
I was shocked, since my departmental evaluations were all very positive, and my student evaulation were superb. In fact, many people had stated that I was the most rigorous AND popular philosophy professor the college had ever had.
The Chair then began citing the differences between "analytic" and "continental" (or "historical") philosophy, and stated that the department was really after a more "continental" philosopher.
I replied that the department had CLEARLY known of my (mainstream) analytical philosophical training and background, and that he himself had assured me that my philosophical bent would never be an issue in my retention.
He replied, vaguely, "Well, I have to take everything into consideration and keep the best interests of the department highest in mind."
We talked for a few more minutes, during which time he assured me that I was "a truly great philosophy teacher," but it was clear that the decision had been made.
I was literally minutes from a class, so I went to that class still shaken.
MANY students had been asking me what I would be teaching in the upcoming year, so that they would arrange their schedules to be certain to get at least one of my classes. So, VERY briefly, in one sentence, at the end of each of my classes that day, I said, "I know that a number of you have been planning to arrange your schedules to take in one of my courses next year, but I have just been informed that my contract is not being renewed, so I will not be here next year."
When hands shot up all over the room, I added, "I'm not at liberty to discuss this matter, so I would direct any questions you might have to the Chair of the History and Philsophy department." Then I left.
The Board of Trustees would be meeting in a matter of days, and they would then be ratifying campus hiring and firing decisions. Critical timing on the part of my department!
Within less than two days, students banded together and gathered over 600 signatures on a petition to save my job. Dozens of letters were sent from concerned parents, and the general uproar was such that when the Board met, it overturned the department's decision and placed my position under the Humanities department, with careful instructions about how I was to be evaluated in the upcoming year....
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
The History department was furious at this move, needless to say. They immediately gave vent to their fury in the school newspaper, and started a letter-writing campaign of their own, accusing the Board of "micro-managing," and stating that they well-knew that I had incited the student campaign to save my job and thereby make them look bad.
The department crafted a vociferious letter to the Rank and Tenure committee in which I was accused, among other things, of being a "David Koresh in the making," and that committee was urged to not renew my contract when my three-year advancement came before them for review.
The department needn't have bothered itself, because the Provost was now in a political position to "take the high ground" against such inappropriate Board meddling with internal campus affairs (as though the personnel committee's SOLE job was to ALWAYS simply rubber-stamp departmental decisions). However, this played well to the other faculty on campus. And, because of the sweeping allegations of my own involvement in saving my job, I was advised to remain silent among the faculty and not try to set the record straight. In Werner's terms, I was advised to "let the truth come out." Well, the truth didn't just come out all by it's little self! Instead, even those many faculty who had originally been behind me, decided that I had gone to far in orchastrating my own self-serving campaign and in inciting the Board to "micro-manage" in this "clearly inappropriate" fashion.
Three weeks into my third year, without ANY evaluation of any sort, in "solidarity with the History department," the Humanities committee voted to not renew my contract. Both the timing and the utter lack of evaluation flew in the face of the college handbook and the Board's express instructions concerning my retention. The Humanities committee in effect picked up the fallen gauntlet from the History department and slapped the Board in the face with it. Sensing campus-wide mutiny, this time the Board capitulated and rubber-stamped that decision. I was told repeately by various Board members that they were horrified by the outcome, but that the majority was simply too afraid of the consequences to take a stand on this issue.
Having seen the writing on the wall, I had already retained two attorneys, and I filed suit (as I had repeatedly informed the President, the Provost, the Academic Senate, and some Board members was my intention)....
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
For the record, I had NOTHING to do with the student campaign to save my job. When a couple of students approached me imploring that I give them some guidance about what to do, I said, "I can't tell you anything. This is completely out of my hands at this point, and I will have nothing whatsoever to do with anything you decide to do or not do. As far as I'm concerned, this is a matter for the Board at this point, and, like you, I await their decision."
I finished out my third year at WWC, and then was terminated. During the course of the summer and the ensuing lawsuit, many
points surfaced. Among them:
1) The History department meeting in which my fate was decided was not handled according to policy. One member (who it was well known would have voted FOR me) was not informed of the meeting. Another member, who was up for tenure review himself, was told, "Keep your mouth shut about this--remember that you are up for tenure review yourself." A member of the Humanities committee, not supposed to be a voting member of a "departmental" decision was present, and, guess what?--he was opposed to my retention. And, finally, no vote was ever taken. The chair simply said, "Well, I guess we have a consensus, so I'll call Richard in to inform him of our decision." When the junior faculty member tried to point out that there hadn't even been a VOTE on the subject, he was again reminded of his tenuous position, and he wisely shut up as "suggested." The left-out faculty member was furious to hear of the departmental "vote," but by that time things had moved so quickly beyond that point that the issue was really moot.
2) One member of the department told me that "nefarious forces were at work," and I have since come to know that the Provost actually told the Chair that if my "departure could be arranged," then a "long-promised" additional History faculty position could "also be arranged." This began the heretofor unknown and historically-rewritten "debate" about analytic vs. continental philosophy, and the "department's" decision to replace me with a continental philosopher. (This is a contentious point, so I have a careful document trail denoting the exact dates that various "pro-Richard" and "anti-the-analytic-Richard" documents appear.)
3) Students overwhelmingly voted that I receive the "Teacher of the Year" award in my third year. A friend of mine sat on that committee, so I have a first-hand account of what happened and why I was denied that award. I got three times as many nominations for that award as the other candidates combined (and the award would actually have been helpful in future job searching), but the Provost (Chair of that committee) stated that he would not allow me to have the award because, "Richard undoubtedly crafted these nominations just as he orchastrated his own retention last year, so these are all invalid; and furthermore, we're going to look like idiots firing the teacher of the year the same year he gets the award." So, again, the Provost had his vengeance. (I'm not clear on exactly HOW I was supposed to "watch my back," as warned.)
Next, the lawsuit....
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
My lawyers were brutally honest from the start. They told me, "You've got as strong of a breach of contract and defamation case as we could hope to see, and you have documented everything very well. However, courts are traditionally VERY loath to involve themselves in what they perceive to be 'internal squabbling,' and so universities are really left to themselves when it comes to tenure issues."
However, we prepared our best case, which included more than a dozen clear-cut violations of the college handbook (established by legal precedent as a de-facto contract) committed by the college and submitted it in Superior Court of Walla Walla County. After jerking us around in discovery for months (playing the typical "bleed the opponent" game), suddenly the college's attorneys filed for dismissal, which was almost as immediately granted.
As attorneys in this forum can attest, the bar a court needs to get over to dismiss a case like this is quite high. Basically a "reasonable mind" would have to look at the case and say that it had effectively no merit, a sort of "not even worth a jury's time" evaluation.
At yet more expense, we appealed on the basis that the case obviously had enough merit that the "tryer of fact," namely a jury SHOULD be given the chance to review the facts. However, as predicted, the courts are INDEED loath to involve themselves in what they perceive as "internal squabbling," and the lower court's decision was almost immediately upheld. It was almost as if both courts said, "Hmmm... tenure dispute. Ok, nuff said. Internal squabbling... disgruntled professor (and tenure is wrong anyway)... dismiss."
I will not bore everybody with the details of the case or the legal mumbo-jumbo, but I have several attorney friends who were not involved in the case, and a law student friend, who have all reviewed the court's rulings, and the "consensus" is that an extremely "superficial" job was done by the courts in this case--again, just as my lawyers predicted.
We gave it our best shot, hoping that the college would be held to account and that thereby other junior faculty could have some confidence in their tenuous positions. The case cost my wife and I many tens of thousands of dollars, yet the most carefully documented case just couldn't even get off the ground. The Provost looked me straight in the eye later and told me that the college had treated me perfectly in all respects, and that they would use me as a model of how junior faculty SHOULD be treated. He has since moved on to pastor a large SoCal church, where I expect he is telling his flock exactly how to treat people in "Christlike" fashion.
I have attempted before God to present these facts as accurately straightforwardly as possible. Do with them what you will. I don't intend to debate this issue at all. I'll be happy to answer factual questions, but I'm not going to entertain the sort of "character pot shots" that have been so much a part of the WoS threads. I do in all seriousness, and with depth of feeling, thank Pete for what I think he was trying to accomplish in this thread. However, perhaps this might have been too big a can of worms to digest.
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
whew! I am on night shift and reading this gave me something to do. I think that Petes threads got lots of attention because while we may not face the same situation, these things go to the heart of almost everyone.
While I recognize the hurdles that Universities go through to get $, and having graduated from a couple U's, I was still naive to the lack of morality that goes on. Sorry to hear bout your struggle.
I salute you and hope that you are happy with your decision because ultimately, that is what matters.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Golsen, yes, actually I am very happy about it. This is one of those things where, you know, you don't feel like a martyr or something like that. I feel really good about it, because I really believe that I did the best I could in the situation. I have actually had various WWC faculty come up to me in local stores over the years and say, "You lost, but you made 'em think. Good job." And stuff like that. And young people I have never met before tell me things like, "I have a friend who had one of your classes. He said it was the best class he had at college. I wish I had had a chance to take one of your classes. But thanks for taking a stand." A guy told me that about a month ago, and I regularly hear stuff like that. So, even now, I think the whole incident had some positive effects, and everybody who was once there making the decisions has retired or moved on. If anything, it's the stand I took that remains from the incident. So, happily, I think I have had a positive effect there, and I do feel good about that.
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
You are the big blind in a cash game of no limit hold 'em. Three players limp and the small blind calls. You hold J 10 of hearts. You flop the nuts, Royal Flush.
Small blind checks to you. What do you do?
|
|
elcapfool
Big Wall climber
hiding in plain sight
|
|
Dang, Jensen,
You should send Mac some money for all the bandwith you chew up.
IMO, you did the right thing.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Uhh... fold?
No, I got it... raise! Right?
All in???
Now I'm second-guessing myself too much.... Your point? Let's just say I'm too dumb to get it.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Thanks, elcapfool. Actually, Mac should send me some money! He can point to all the traffic/bandwidth and charge more for advertising. Jus doin my part. :-)
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
You can say that if you want. I won't.
Think about it. I won't say life is a poker game. But most of our decisions and sequences of decisions have game qualities. Games of this type were heavily studied in late 40s to early 60s.
The results unfortunately are not generally known. You could also see reference in earlier thread to "The Strategy of Conflict". It is much simpler to read for the non-mathematician than game theory texts.
Perhaps it would be a great addition to elementary school curricula to teach some of these game concepts. Much more practical than chess.
(Raise is wrong. There is no bet to raise yet.)
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
madbolter1 -
Here is something else to consider. Were you a grader or a teacher?
A grade is just a label you assign to somebody with the intent of ranking that person's performance on a set of tasks at the point in time at which they were completed. It would probably be a good bet that half the stuff you "taught" to half of your "A" students was forgotten within two years.
On the other hand you might have had C students, who two years later, have retained the same knowledge or have even extended beyond the 1/2'ers.
By designating yourself a grader instead of a teacher, you forced yourself into a fairly untenable position. You basically turned your work product into grades instead of education. So ironically, you succeeded as a grader and failed as a teacher. (IMO)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Richard
Thanks for sharing that, and it was very interesting.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Thank you, Werner.
You raise an excellent point, Trad. However, I think your "grader vs. teacher" is a false dichotomy. Why can I not be both?
Without pounding my chest, but just as an honest answer to your question, it is a fact that I run into former students all the time who tell me things like, "You changed my life. I will never see ethical relativism the same way." Or, "Your 'argument from binary terms' has given me the ability to think dilemmas through with a clarity I never thought possible before." I could quote dozens and dozens of pages of quotations from students who believe that what I taught them had impressive and practical application to their lives. So, I don't think I am being obtuse to see myself as a teacher.
Yet, I also think it is possible to "get it right" (or "wrong") about what a particular view or argument is. So, there is actual objectivity involved in the process of charitably understanding what another person is arguing. Those sorts of things can be graded. Good writing can also be graded. There are well-known more or less effective ways to convey certain sorts of thinking, and people can be graded on the clarity with which they convey ideas and properly use the English language (among others). And, in any event, plagiarism is a "fail."
So, it is possible to be a "teacher," in every positive sense you use the term, AND a "grader" in many positive senses that you seem to overlook. In my career I have tried to excel at both.
BTW, I did know that a 'raise' wasn't appropriate (with my limited grasp of poker), but I haven't found the time yet to see how you are making it out that I've got some "royal flush" sitting in my hand. If you could enlighten me about that aspect of the game theory you are employing here, I would be most obliged!
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
mb1 - Pardon me. You are, of course, correct. I did pose it as a dichotomy. You surely could claim to be both. In which case, you failed at both, (I am assuming here that you are now neither - which might be wrong.) Or perhaps, to say that you terminated the activities prematurely would be more accurate.
I was implicitly thinking that you might have a value system that assigned a higher weight to teaching (evidenced in your reply), but at precisely the wrong moment you allowed your grader valuation to override your value of education causing behavior that conflicted with your goal of educating.
My feeling is that your work product of value to society and your students, in particular, was educated students, not graded students. By your actions with respect to grading, you were instrumental in failing to perform the more valuable function (again IMO) on a continuing basis. It is easy to imagine that the financially oriented administrators felt the same, but they were not successful at recognizing and communicating your common interests.
In all fairness, it is easy for teachers to fall into the trap of thinking that grading students is their primary job. It is, after all, much easier than communicating the subject to a body of students with diverse backgrounds and abilities. Unfortunately, in academia, grading seems to be a necessary distraction. :-(
(Of course, the fact that some former students have praised your work, does not negate my "half" comment. In fact, they might even have been the mentioned C students.)
WRT poker. It is too bad that you are not especially familiar with the game. (The flop contains AKQ of hearts.) You must stay in the game, since you have a hand that can't lose. But at the same time, your goal is to optimize (locally) your winnings on this particular hand, and less importantly, in this case, globally, the winnings in the whole game. Your bet contains information that will allow the other players to evaluate what you have, and how they should act. Your goal, in this round is to keep as many as possible in the game. Checking will achieve that, but without getting them to contribute. Their betting in the previous round (and hands) gives you information about their hands. Each of the participants is presumably reading each of these and other cues as to how to proceed.
The point is that your strategies were naive. You were involved in a negotiation. Most successful negotiations have both conflict and a cooperative components. You pursued only conflict, from all appearances here. Negotiations usually require good communications. You did not help the administration to find a solution, nor did they you.
Please see the book mentioned. It is far too rich in content for me to do it justice.
|
|
cjain
Mountain climber
Lake Forest, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 8, 2006 - 03:18pm PT
|
Even to the exent you can dichotomize teaching from grading, as a professor you are stuck having to do both.
You are requied to grade by the school as part of your job, and these grades are very, very important to the students, as it has a direct impact on their future. So it is important to be fair and consistent in your grading.
Faced with the situation of M.E., one alternative would have been to explicitly change the policy and make it clear that this was being done at the instruction of the administration. Then submit grade changes not just for M.E., but for any students impacted by the policy in the past.
Ah well, what was done was done. No point second guessing it now.
One question. The end result--the expungement of the class from M.E.'s records strikes me as strange. How did the committee reach that result? Did they ever make a final determination as to whether M.E. committed plagiarism? I ask, because it seems to me that if it was determined that she did not commit plagiarism, she should have gotten whatever grade that she would presumably have earned. But if she did plagiarize, she should have received a failing grade for at least the paper, if not the course. In either case, the class should have remained on her record. What am I missing?
Also, I can't comment on whether failing someone for one incident of plagiarism is "Christlike" or not, but it's interesting to see what Walla Walla College's current "Academic Integrity Policy" is: http://www.wwc.edu/academics/policy/integrity/ This policy appears to have been approved in the immediate aftermath of the M.E. dispute and explicitly allows professors to fail a student for the assignment or for the class, but only after consultation with the administration. Compared to a school like Stanford, WWC seems to have a real lack of of standards and procedures. For example, see http://www.stanford.edu/dept/vpsa/judicialaffairs/students/plagiarism.questions.htm.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
cjain, you make some really thoughtful points, I think. I'll start at the bottom: the lack of a "toothy" academic integrity policy. You are correct that WWC passed this in the immediate aftermath of the incident, however, they just can't bring themselves to adopt a policy and procedures that might "hang them out to dry" in exactly the same sort of extortion that got the job done in M.E.'s case! So, additional problems wait in the wings.
The expungement was entirely without merit, as you note. "Something's missing here." Ultimately the confession just could not be overturned by quasi-reasonable minds, and people were left believing that M.E. did in fact plagiarize just as she said. However, the "academic standards" committee (and I will always say that in scare quotes) decided (on some unspecified basis) that M.E.'s confession was coerced. When I debated this point, I was asked, "What proof do you have that you didn't coerce the confession in any way?" I replied, "Well, how about my word for one thing? What do you want, a statement from M.E. that I didn't coerce her confession? So, how do I then prove that this statement wasn't itself coerced? Another statement that the statement that the confession wasn't coerced wasn't coerced?"
Somehow a logical leap was made from the possibility of coercion of a confession that everybody agreed did reflect the reality of her plagiarism to the notion that this (somehow) justified expunging my course from her transcript. Of course, a little administrative pressure to make something happen can really grease those old "logical" wheels!
I agree that I could have changed my policy, but, particularly in the face of this sort of extortion, that way lies madness. Not only is such a move explicitly caving in to extortion, but it undermines one of the sacred principles of the academy that you properly note just above. There is a tight bond between teacher and student, and the evaluations performed must be sacrosanct. This is why every major university grants complete and total grading power to professors and not to administrators--so that administrative manipulation of just this sort cannot take place--so that a student can have confidence that his/her professor is actually and without manipulation or coercion evaluating his/her work with as much integrity as possible. Only in the case where an obvious abuse of professorial power can be demonstrated is a professor's grade changeable by administrative process. I believe very strongly in these principles, so I didn't feel that I could compromise them.
Which all leads to a sort of overview point that I hope will address Trad's, Pete's, etc. There are all sorts of pragmatic approaches I could have taken if I believed that this matter was a "negotiation." Perhaps I was naive, but I guess I still am, having learned effectively nothing from the whole event. :-) Sorry to disappoint, Trad.
I saw the matter as one of a contrast between principles of integrity and concessions to various forms of dishonesty. I DID offer to let M.E. take the class again, with a replacement grade, for example, and I would have been open to lots of options that would have been consistent with her failing that course at that time. The administration had other ways it could have resolved the issue with daddy, again, consistent with M.E. failing that course at that time. But, the adminstration was determined to placate daddy by offering only some "heroic" method to make the whole event like it had never happened, and, in my idealistic/naive state, I was not going to be party to that.
Perhaps that means something like "I can't get along." All I can say is that I have had no problem "getting along" in many other similar situations at schools that DO value the principle of academic integrity. At such schools, I have "fit right in." I guess I came out of idealistic/naive schools, like are found in the UC and CS systems, and this so nurtured my own idealism/naivity that it just couldn't overcome the shock enough to respond in proper pragmatic fashion.
I'm, of course, speaking somewhat tongue in cheek, but, seriously, I still see no "negotiation" in the works in this setting, not a single one of my friends from other schools had any suggestion to me then that I adopt some more pragmatic approach to "negotiate" some win/win outcome. Perhaps this very fact will horrify Trad about the state of academia, but from earlier posts, I expect that this comes as no surprise. Personally, I still believe in those ideals, so I don't see academia as in need of some sort of pragmatic or negotiation-based makeover.
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
I am not horrified. But you really should read the book. Starting with the 2 day hard line puts you in a corner from the outset. You essentially have written a pact threatening academic death to the student, but it backfired. You ended up dying by your own sword because it also did not allow you any (much) wiggle room.
As was pointed out, you could have wiggled, if you wiggled the same way for prior offenders even ex post and still been "fair". But it is not a pretty solution.
Remember the primary goal is (or should be) education, not grading. If you doubt this, ask what people are paying for when they pay tuition. If they were paying for grades, there would be a different scale for each grade!
Nobody is arguing that grading is not a part of the job. But grades are sort of transitory. I do not remember a single grade today, but probably could list all of my courses. If the goal is permanent education, the grades are really kind of superfluous. If you start with that, then you can tone down the plagiarism policy.
Do not get me wrong - I am very against plagiarism, copyright infringement, and other forms of theft of intellectual property. It is just unfortunate to see pure principle kill an academic's career. But keeping mind that almost no academic institutions could survive only on tuition, leaves this sort of mechanism always lurking, especially for the more financially marginal institution.
Never expect to be able to predict the outcome of a jury or judge. The post crimpie linked to tells a completely different story. What impartial jury will believe 100% of either?
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 08:31am PT
|
Richard,
Do you just LOOK stupid, or were you BORN that way?!
Every now and then on McTopo, there is a popular post that receives scores if not hundreds of hits. Suddenly, after a detailed posting by one person, everything stops. It's as though you hear "nothin' but crickets....."
I wonder why that is?
Recently, I made a post asking [url="http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=232647"]*URGENT* - Would you lose your career to do what's right?[/url] The post received many heartfelt responses and suggestions. Many of the answers suggested some form of compromise, which I said wasn't really an option.
Above in Richard's posts, you can read the entire story. I finally got the opportunity just now to read it. I had heard bits and pieces of it from Richard in person, but the whole story makes your head spin.
So now you can answer the question - it is no longer Big Wall Theory, it is Big Wall Fact.
Given the facts of the matter as outlined above, what would you have done? Do you think Richard made the right move, or not?
Personally, I'd have caved in. I am too much a pragmatist. I would have employed the cowardly technique of "situational ethics" - I agree that to change her mark is ethically wrong, however in my unique situation, there is valid reason to do so.
P.S. Is there anybody on this forum who is so unfamiliar with the story of Peter and the Wolf that it needed to be copied and pasted above? Sheesh.
|
|
elcapfool
Big Wall climber
hiding in plain sight
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 08:41am PT
|
Supporting a wife and kids changes the game quite a bit.
Money is Mammon, and Mammon rules on Earth.
The whole thing just sucks. But Sun Tzu wrote that one should never back an enemy into a corner, as it fills them with a terrible resolve.
It seems that even a religious institution can be filled with the demons of men.
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 08:44am PT
|
Peter, I must have missed your wolf story. All I remember are stories about crabs, pirate ledges, cybele, and wine. Did you really do an ascent with a wolf?
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 09:32am PT
|
Not as of yet.
To me, the leaders of the college were like the pharisees in Jesus' time. The guys with the political power who abused it to further their own needs at the expense of the flock, all the while maintaining their "holier-than-thou" position.
I miss my crab. I would like him returned, please. He belonged to my daughter who I loved, and who I lost six years ago this month.
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
St. Louis
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 09:38am PT
|
The crab is still gone? That sucks.
Edited to say that the above may be interpreted as a cruel statement and it was not intended as such. Of course it sucks *far* more - in a non-comparable way - that you lost your daughter. I'm very sorry to hear of this loss.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2006 - 11:24am PT
|
Pete
"I miss my crab."
The crab was sitting on the stone retaining wall at the 140 - 120 junction (where the old yose dam used to be). I am not shitting you man. I saw it twice as I drove by (I did not have time to stop).
I thought it was weird ........
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2006 - 01:35pm PT
|
I know it's been awhile, but I did want to summarize one final point about this case. Some of the legal docs have been linked, and some people have suggested that these come apart from my above account. The idea is that I have told only a partial and thereby distorted account so far.
What I have said so far has indeed been only a partial story (the whole thing is quite complex). However, what I have said so far is consistent with the linked legal docs. The emphasis has been different, but there is no distortion.
The emphasis in the linked docs has been on the distinction between analytical and continental philosophy. The reason we had to deal with that distinction in the lawsuit is that this is the emphasis WWC wanted to put on the case. Their response to the suit was carefully cast to appeal to the very view courts have traditionally had about such cases: Internal squabbling and disgruntled professors. Just as my attorneys predicted, the college's best case (and the one that ultimately carried the day) WAS to make the matter overly simple, "Really, your honor, regardless of what Jensen tries to fabricate, the matter here is quite simple: The college needed a continental philosopher, it thought it was hiring a continental philosopher, and when the college realized that Jensen was downright hostile to continental philosophy, it simply opted to not renew his contract. Washington is an at-will-employment State, and so the college simply exercised its legal right, during the initial three years prior to tenure, to determine that Jensen was not a good fit with the college's needs."
Wow, so simple. See? Everything Jensen tries to claim is nothing but smoke and mirrors in a desperate attempt to obscure the SIMPLE truth!
And, that tactic worked beautifully. The courts WANTED to hear such a SIMPLE case, and that beautiful simplicity is exactly what they got out of all the briefs.
What the court negelected to pay any attention to, however, was a whole series of pesky FACTS that demonstrated the college's "simple" case to BE the smokescreen.
For example, when I was repeatedly interviewed at the college one weekend, with more than a dozen representatives from various departments, and in another instance with dozens of students present, I repeatedly emphasized that I am trained as an analytical philosopher. I repeatedly stated that I was not sympathetic to continental philosophy and did not consider it to be mainstream, but rather that it is properly viewed as a small cul-de-sac off of the superhighway that has been analytical philosophy. (This, by the way, is not just my own "take" on the matter. The Princeton Review and the Philosophical Gourmet have stated this view.) I argued that from the ancients to the present, philosophy has always been advanced using analytical methods, and even continental philosophy itself can only be evaluated (even from within that discipline) using analytical methods. So, I made my "bias" (if something of this foundational magnitude can be called a "bias") perfectly clear.
However, the college had employed a continental philosopher for five years prior, and she argued against me during these interviews, so I got the impression that the college WAS indeed looking for a continental philosopher. I went home after the interviews assuming that I was not the man for the job.
When the Chair called me the next day to offer me the job, I was honestly shocked, and expressed this forthrightly: "It seemed clear to me that you wanted a continental philosopher, and I will NEVER be one."
The Chair replied, "You were most impressive and persuasive in your interviews, and we are convinced that you will teach philosophy like we actually want it taught."
I responded, "Well, now my concern is that you're going to move me 2000 miles, away from jobs that both my wife and I like, and THEN you're going to think, 'Well, we really want a continental after all.' And then we're going to be screwed. I am NOT moving to take that job unless you can assure me that my particular philosophical 'bent' is not going to become some sort of after-the-fact issue."
The Chair assured me: "We WELL recognize the distinction at this point, and we WANT you and your 'analytical' philosophy. I can assure you that I recognize your concerns, and the analytical/continental distinction will NEVER be an issue in your evaluations or in any decisions about your ongoing retention."
I immediately called two of my colleagues at CSUSB and related the entire conversation. One suggested that I get that point in writing, although (stupidly) I responded, "No, the Chair is my Christian brother, and I'm sure he's good for his word on this." Both remember that conversation, and when the Chair informed me that I was not going to be rehired, on the basis of that very distinction, I reminded him of that conversation. He admitted to it to my face, but said that he had to do what was best for the department (as it turns out, THAT having NOTHING whatsoever to do with some philosophical distinction).
I had been suspicious early in my second year when the Chair talked with me about what courses I would be teaching in that year. He said, "You should teach courses you like."
I said, "No, I agreed to teach some courses like Feminist Philosophy and Existentialism, and I am happy to teach those courses. I actually enjoy broadening myself."
He replied, "No, it's better for you to teach the stuff you really like." And at that point we settled on a totally mainstream package of courses for the year. But I was very curious why the department didn't want me to teach any of the "transition" continental courses they had earlier suggested. At that time I simply concluded that they were happy with how things were going (which is the ONLY thing that can be drawn from the documents of that time). So, I thought little of it until when MUCH LATER the department started manufacturing the notion that I had "steadfastly refused" to teach the continental courses they required of me. Leave it to the history department to invent a "history" of events.
ALL the documents I and the department can produce demonstrate that the analytical/continental distinction was not in play until AFTER the department had already decided to let me go. There can be no denying that the analytical/continental distinction was to play no role in my evaluations or retention. And there can be no doubt that ALL my peer evaluations were stellar, indicating that the department was more than satisfied with my teaching.
ONLY when the department came under scrutiny from the students, many parents, the Board, and a court, did the analytical/continental distinction increasingly become THE reason why I was fired. THIS was the only remotely reasonable thing the department could say! So, in our court case, we had to address this issue in great detail and demonstrate how it COULD NOT have played the role LATER indicated by the department... and how it could not have explained the MANY Handbook violations that took place.
The department succeeded in making our case look overly complex, while their account was brilliantly simple. The court, as predicted, fixated on the "simple truth," in intentional ignorance of the many FACTS this "simple truth" left unaccounted for.
I feel confident that people on this thread don't want to get into the minute details of exactly HOW the college violated the Handbook. But I did want to clarify that my overview account as given earlier is not inconsistent with the linked documents. The case WAS complex (apparently far too complex for a court to bother with), yet the truth of what happened actually bears no resemblance to the "simple" case the department would have everyone believe.
I repeat that I don't regret the decisions I made. I feel good about taking the stands I did, although my case should act as a warning to future junior faculty.
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2006 - 02:09pm PT
|
All seems pretty reasonable, Richard, as well as common, unfortunately. Things like this happen in the professional world all the time. Someone does something, good or bad, that gets someone else bent one way or the other, but that something isn't legally or morally able/enough to get them dismissed. So, they make up some crap or dumb it down. How would this be any different than the countless number of people "let go", daily, for the lame excuse of "downsizing" or "budgetary constraints"?
So, why is there any confusion here?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2006 - 02:14pm PT
|
No confusion in MY mind... not EVER on ANY subject! :-)
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2006 - 02:29pm PT
|
Wow. Thanks for your candor on that. If anything that's a crazier story than the WOS multi-decade saga... almost.
My own, irrelevent, take on this is that, as presented, you did the right thing and took the high road. You get my vote.
It looks like you're still in Walla-Walla. I would think that may seem a small town after this.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2006 - 02:41pm PT
|
Yeah, my wife's got a really good job here, and we built a house here. We would certainly consider moving under the right circumstances, but such have not presented themselves yet.
Sometimes it does seem like a "small town," and you're perceptive to notice that. Fortunately, unlike the WoS saga, too many people here know enough of the bigger story, so I enjoy respect and good will when I (often) run into people who know me. I can't moan and groan too much. :-)
|
|
| Messages 1 - 41 of total 41 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!