UD’s been posting for a few days on the appalling Matthew Harris story, in which a notorious and dangerous madman has been handed on from one excellent university to another, first as a grad student and then as a lecturer.
For years, several people at these schools have known or suspected that Harris is a serious threat to society, but nonetheless he has been able to leap from one academic pinnacle to another, stopped only by behavior so terrifying that he’s now in jail.
How can we account for this series of events?
Let me first quote a bit from the latest story about him.
[C]urrent and former students at all three universities alleged negligence by the schools for letting Harris slide previously, despite his concerning conduct… [H]is behavior was well known within the small [Duke] philosophy program [but two students who were in the department at the time said they] did not feel they would have been supported by faculty if they’d come forward.
Whoa. Why the hell did they feel that way? I mean, if his threatening behavior was well known, why would faculty have failed to support people who formally reported it? What a condemnation of the Duke department.
*****************************
Did the students worry they would be accused of racism if they complained about Harris?
And what of the four professors who approved Harris’s dissertation, and the professors who wrote letters of recommendation glowing enough to get Harris a job at UCLA?
*****************************
A little more speculation here, if I may. I’m going to guess that no one read the thesis with much care, or indeed interacted much with Harris.
And a tad more speculation, please. I’m going to guess that influential people at Cornell and Duke championed Harris in a way that may well have made complaining about him seem not worth the hassle.
There’s much, much more to this story, and it will almost certainly come out. We will see if UD‘s guesses have any merit to them. Meanwhile, expect lawsuits. Expect faculty resignations. Expect professors having to testify at Harris’s trial. This one’s a real mess.
February 9th, 2022 at 10:20AM
I’m not as optimistic as you about more information coming out. I suspect that everyone and every institution involved will keep silent. Why would they confess what you and I see as obvious?
You could start by naming names. Who was his advisor? Who signed off on his dissertation? How about calling them for comment and seeing if you can get anything from them.
While you’re at it, how about asking GW why the President’s FIRST reaction to the China cartoons was to remove them and threaten those who posted them? It’s nice that he issued a mea culpa, but starting with censorship reveals a lot about the GW administration and about the state of free speech on campuses today. Why does GW recognize a CCP-dominated group? Why does it give any credence to people who are obviously acting on behalf of the CCP?
February 9th, 2022 at 10:35AM
When lecturers are hired for one-year contracts in another UCLA department), they are simply appointed, typically by the vice chair for undergraduate studies, in order to meet teaching needs. There is no system for broader faculty discussion, and nothing vaguely resembling the scrutiny that would go into a tenure track hire.
February 9th, 2022 at 10:43AM
Nikolai: Yes – I’d expect that this lack of even rudimentary scrutiny is typical even at very good schools. One problem is that this guy’s history of prestige institutions preceded him – that is, whoever’s okaying him for the classroom is basically saying Well, Cornell, Duke… Dude must be okay … Maybe this person even scanned the guy’s enthusiastic letters of recommendation. Looks okay, so…
But has the guy ever been in front of a classroom before? Any chance to teach at Duke, for instance? Shouldn’t the person who put him in a UCLA classroom at least have met with Harris, or zoomed with him, or exchanged emails, engaging him in a conversation about how he felt about teaching, how he planned to teach the course, etc etc?
February 9th, 2022 at 11:21AM
Oh, absolutely. I’m just not surprised that even the most basic steps beyond, “looks qualified, good letters, thesis has a title that sounds about right, teaching problem solved” were not taken. And any supervision of lecturers is minimal, if it exists at all. See also the broader issues that got the philosophy department sued by the union representing lecturers….
February 9th, 2022 at 11:23AM
Dennis: On GW: The behavior is truly bizarre. The person GW has chosen as its brand new leader is either ridiculously easily intimidated or lacks a fundamental grasp of the principles of free speech. Given its last embarrassing president (Mr Disneyland), GW needs to have chosen very, very carefully…
Oh I think people at the Matthew Harris schools will spill the beans, yes. As the trial gets underway and significant attention is riveted to it, various students, professors, and administrators will not be able to resist writing a tell-all for Inside Higher Ed, the Chronicle, the NYT. Remember the flurry of commentary from many who were involved one way or another in the Avital Ronell story – everyone had WHAT to say about that, and I think the same garrulous instinct will stand us in good stead here.
The article I link to does indeed name his Duke advisor/thesis chair, and the person issues an ass-covering statement. But the story’s not over for him.
February 9th, 2022 at 12:11PM
” . . lacks a fundamental grasp of the principles of free speech.”
I think that’s certainly true. Unfortunately, it’s also true of almost all university administrators these days. How many, when faced with some new controversy, start by assuming that free speech should apply?
The first option, intimidation, is also likely correct. University administrators have seldom been known for the strength of their backbones. Now, the fear of being labeled as racists, homophobic, sexist, or something equally bad leads them to start by bowing to any demands made by a group able to wield those charges.
Speaking of which, I’m surprised no one has mentioned the racial angle in the Harris case. It would hardly be shocking to learn that those who knew about his flaws failed to mention them lest he play the race card against them.
I hope you’re right about the “garrulous instinct” causing people to spill the beans. The Ronell case really isn’t comparable, however. Here, those who would need to spill the beans are the ones who knew of his problems and failed to act. They’re hardly likely to condemn themselves if they can hide their complicity. In the Ronell case, there’s no indication that anyone in authority knew the truth about the accusations except for the Title IX administrators, and they’re not supposed to talk about what they know.
February 9th, 2022 at 1:09PM
Wouldn’t suggesting that there was something off about a student, or a job candidate, or a contingent faculty member, be particularly hazardous if that person belonged to any of the protected status cohorts? Or might it be as simple as graduate programs screening in part for people who follow their own muses? The sociology program at Northern Illinois once recommended for a Dean’s Award a guy who had a lot of intellectual talent, but also the demons that drove him to shoot up a classroom a few years later.
How do you temper principles with practicality?