This is an archived page. Images and links on this page may not work. Please visit the main page for the latest updates.

 
 
 
Read my book, TEACHING BEAUTY IN DeLILLO, WOOLF, AND MERRILL (Palgrave Macmillan; forthcoming), co-authored with Jennifer Green-Lewis. VISIT MY BRANCH CAMPUS AT INSIDE HIGHER ED





UD is...
"Salty." (Scott McLemee)
"Unvarnished." (Phi Beta Cons)
"Splendidly splenetic." (Culture Industry)
"Except for University Diaries, most academic blogs are tedious."
(Rate Your Students)
"I think of Soltan as the Maureen Dowd of the blogosphere,
except that Maureen Dowd is kind of a wrecking ball of a writer,
and Soltan isn't. For the life of me, I can't figure out her
politics, but she's pretty fabulous, so who gives a damn?"
(Tenured Radical)

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Let's See If We Can Follow This.

From the Daily Lobo, student newspaper of the University of New Mexico:



A [University of New Mexico] professor received a promotion despite submitting a resume with an inflated account of research and publication, according to a letter from a former member of the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee.

The letter does not identify the professor.

The April 19 letter stated that the member resigned from the committee in protest of the professor's promotion and the lack of consequences after problems with the resume were discovered. [How did the student newspaper get the letter? From the letter writer?]

Don Coes, the professor who wrote the letter, declined to comment. [Gave it to the paper but wouldn't comment?]

The investigation of the resume began in 2005 after another professor filed a complaint with the committee about not being promoted, despite having the same qualifications as the professor who was, according to the letter. [2005. This has been kicking around for two years. What investigation? Has anything been done? So a professor resigned from the committee in protest, and another professor filed a complaint because his or her uninflated qualifications - equivalent to the uninflated qualifications of the inflator - kept him or her from promotion.]

The letter was addressed to Virginia Shipman, president of the Faculty Senate, and John Geissman, chairman of the Committee on Governance. [Which letter? The letter of complaint from the unpromoted faculty member?]

Shipman declined to comment. Geissman could not be reached for comment Friday. [No one seems willing to comment on anything.]

Coes was the chairman of the subcommittee that investigated the professor's résumé, according to his letter. [Okay. So there was the committee that promoted the inflator, and there was the subcommittee that investigated the inflator. The guy who wrote letter #1 was on the promotion committee -- but not, we assume, chair -- and was chair of the investigation subcommittee.]

The Faculty Handbook does not outline a policy for dealing with false statements on applications for promotion. [So I guess that makes the statement by the president of the Board of Regents with which this article closes -- "It's not something that the regents have any control over... It's all bound by the Faculty Handbook." -- incorrect. Why doesn't the article note that it's incorrect?]

"This omission creates perverse incentives," Coes stated in the letter. "An accurate statement of one's accomplishments may result in denial of promotion, while significant distortions of one's record may succeed." [At the University of New Mexico, nice guys finish last. This at least is clear.]

Marilee Jones, former dean of admissions at MIT, resigned April 26 after admitting that she lied on her resume, according to The Associated Press. [The writer just drops this in... a teeny little hint about the sorts of things that happen at real schools when faculty... well, read on. It's going to turn out that this faculty member didn't merely inflate...]

Tim Lowrey, chairman of the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee, said he would not comment on the letter because the issues discussed in it were confidential. [Ah yes, academic confidentiality rears its head again. Note that absolutely no one is willing to say anything. It's amazing the student reporters were able to stretch this event, composed of Total Silence + One Letter, into something resembling a news story.]

According to Coes' letter:

The resume stated that the professor had published a book through a university press.

However, the book had been published at a company requiring authors to pay to print their books. [Vanity press versus university press. That ain't inflation. It's a lie.]

At least three publications mentioned in the professor's resume could not be found with interlibrary loan searches of about 38,000 libraries. [These were probably made up.]

The professor claimed to be the sole author of several publications that had been co-authored. [Not the worst sin in the world, but in context it's another indication that we've got a liar on our hands.]

The resume listed two articles - published seven years apart in different journals - that were almost the same, except for the title. [You can list both of these, but you have to write "Reprinted in ___________" or something like that.]

In April 2006, the committee told UNM's administration about the problems on the resume. [Okay, so it's been over a year since the lies were discovered and the administration informed.]

The administration said the case would be referred to the University's Ethics Committee.

The letter does not identify which administrators were involved.

In July, the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee found that the case had not gone to the Ethics Committee. [Hey. Where'd that case get to?]

"A letter of apology for our investigation was sent to the successful candidate, stating that the matter had been completely laid to rest," the letter stated. "We were told that UNM's response to the matter was 'confidential.'" [Which letter are we quoting from here? The letter from Coes? And the case was resolved by handing an apology to the professor who lied? Why? Oh yeah. Confidential.]

After the case was dismissed, the professor who filed the complaint appealed to the Board of Regents, according to the letter. [Incredulous unsuccessful candidate reasonably enough figures he or she needs to kick this upstairs, to the Regents.]

The letter stated that the regents returned the case to the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee. [Er, back to the... What happened to the Ethics Committee?]

The professor was not called to the committee's hearing, according to the letter. [So they had a hearing but didn't even talk to the complaining professor.... Or wait. Are we talking about the liar?]

The letter stated that the hearing did not include the information about the professor's resume and research record. [Must have been an interesting hearing. Hey, how are you? How's the wife? Adjourned!]

As of April 19, no changes had been made to the professors' promotions, according to the letter. [Right, so two years have passed since a professor at the University of New Mexico was promoted on the basis of a series of lies about his or her work. The only thing that's been done about it is that the university has issued an apology to the professor because.... Because the professor didn't lie? On what basis are they claiming he or she didn't lie? Oh yeah. Confidential.]

In his letter, Coes stated he was unhappy that the confidentiality written into the committee's rules was used "to shield this case from the scrutiny of the Regents and the faculty at large." [Duh. The main reason UD's futzing with this thing is that it's all about what's wrong with the way confidentiality is used at universities.]

Jamie Koch, president of the Board of Regents, said any problems with the promotion process at UNM have to be addressed by the faculty.

"That's really an issue that the faculty leadership has to deal with," he said. "That's not something that the regents have any control over, or should have any control over. It's all bound by the Faculty Handbook." [You've gotta pity the professor who made the mistake of telling the truth about his or her record. Talk about a runaround. UNM looks truly, truly pathetic.]