"We have never taken away anyone's job for criticizing the quality of a program, and we
never will. You should also know that when five members of the University community who
heard over 40 hours of testimony in what was a quasi-legal proceeding would vote
unanimously that the faculty member was guilty of grave misconduct, there is not just
smoke but a lot of fire. For the faculty member to make public statements about due
process not being served is understandable in her circumstances, but simply untrue.
"What you have been reading in the press has simply not reflected the whole story."
"Thank you for your email. President Spanier is out of the country so I am responding on
his behalf. I will be sure he is aware of your opinion. I can assure you that there is
much, much more to this than you are reading in the papers. I hope you realize that the
University is also limited in what it can say publicly about this case at this point in
time, especially given that the faculty member has already indicated she plans to file a
lawsuit. I can also assure you that the University's hearing process was followed
explicitly at every step of the way.
I emailed Professor Leiter questioning the Vice President's accuracy, since the press
reports had given me a different impression of the vote. Ex-Professor Gerard emailed me
to confirm my conjecture, saying that the votes of the five person committee were
5-0 for grave misconduct
3-2 recommendation for termination.
5-0 against failure to perform
Thus, it is misleading to say that the committee voted unanimously that the professor
was guilty of grave misconduct. It is true literally. But it is also true that the
committee voted unanimously that the administration had brought a false charge of
failure to perform. And the committee only voted 3 to 2 for dismissal.
The "grave misconduct" vote is unimportant, and looks to me like a conscience saver. How do you, my reader, define "grave misconduct"? In the abstract, it is hard to do. Out of this context, I might well agree that Professor Gerard had engaged in "grave misconduct" (I don't know enough details.) But what I would mean by that is something like that she had behaved badly enough that her colleagues ought to speak to her about it. In the present context, "grave misconduct" has a simple operational meaning: "behavior bad enough to justify stripping somebody of tenure and firing them". Thus, it was ingenuous of the 2 dissenters to vote that her misconduct was grave and then to vote against firing her. If they really thought this was "grave misconduct" rising to the level that firing was appropriate, they ought to have voted to fire her too. But they didn't, showing that they didn't think this misconduct rose to the level claimed by the university.
Also important is who the "five members of the University community" were. From the Feb. 25 campus newspaper report:
The committee, which consisted of professors Martin Trethewey, Gordon DeJong, and Jill
Fields and deans Judy Olian and Susan Welch, voted 3-2 that Gerard "be terminated for
adequate cause based on grave misconduct."
I'd like to look up these five, but I failed to in my cursory first Web approach. We
can see, however, that two of them are deans. Deans are not protected by tenure, even
what "tenure" Penn State professors may have. The usual rule, I think, is that it's
okay to fire them for voting the wrong way, though maybe the university would have to
pay for breach of a few years of a five-year contract. Given the apparent atmosphere
at Penn State, I tremble for the dean who votes against what the President wants in a
high-profile case.
This is worth going into because the Vice President's misleading half-truth severely undermines his argument. His argument is that there are actually much worse things Professor Gerard did than have been reported, and though Penn State has a policy of silence which prevents it from disclosing them, the rest of the world should trust Penn State's judgement and integrity. I've criticized that argument before. Now he has wrecked it. He has shown that we cannot trust Penn State not to try to mislead us about facts we can verify, the committee reports. Rather than giving us all the votes, or the most important votes, he chose the least important vote, but the only one which supports his position. How, then, can Penn State now rely on the argument from trust?
Now, let us go to a general lesson that this episode can illustrate, on the proper way to use a "no comment" policy. To illustrate, let me give a hypothetical.
The Murderer.
The accused killed Joe, and that night told the newspapers, "I killed
him, and I killed him because he welched on a drug deal." The next
day,though, he revises his statement. "Yes, he welched on the drug deal,
but the real reason I killed him wasn't that-- it was something I can't
tell you about-- self defense or something like that, but I can't give you details. But
you can trust that I do have a good reason, can't
you?"
The murderer's policy won't work. Maybe he should have kept silent, rather
than explaining details of what happened that night, because he has both a bad motive
and a good motive for killing Joe. But by the next day, he's already admitted to having
a bad motive for killing Joe. At that point, keeping silent about the good motive leaves
him in big trouble.
In the present application, let's suppose Penn State does have a good reason for firing Nona Gerard. It might have made sense for Penn State to keep quiet entirely. But instead, it has revealed its bad reasons, while concealing the good ones. This leads the observer to doubt the existence of the good reasons.
The following joke has some relevance.
"Yes, Ole, I will," she shyly answered.
They were silent for half an hour. Then Lena said, "Ole, shouldn't we talk about it?"
Ole's reply: "I think maybe there's already been too much talking tonight."
Ole and Lena. Ole, overcome by the beauty of the moon shining on the porch, said
to
Lena, "Will you marry me, Lena?"
Ole wasn't really doing a good job of damage control, as any married man
could have told him. Once he's made the proposal, he'd better say more, and keep Lena
happy. He's put himself at the global minimum of the payoff function.
These things are certaintly entangling. I haven't even started to talk about Professor Deming's problems at Oklahoma, and I'd hoped to discuss a topic that made for a very interesting law-and-economics lunch yesterday: *Should* a university be able to fire professors who criticize its programs and thereby impair their effectiveness, leavng tenure protection only for research and teaching activities that do not directly hinder university programs?"
Maybe another day.
[in full at 04.03.05a.htm . Erasmusen@yahoo.com. ]
Later that day: I found out about 4 of the members of the committee. The good news is that they are from the main, University Park, campus of Penn State, not from Altoona, thus raising their credibility, and the "deans" are not just deanlets or central administrators, but heavyweights-- the deans of arts and sciences and of the business school. The bad news is the same. This information raises the stakes. It increases the likelihood that Penn State really does have a good mystery reason for the dismissal, but it brings more shame on Penn State in general, as opposed to just Altoona, if it turns out the mystery reason is just a lie.
As one reader pointed out, if a dean is also a tenured professor, then even though he fired as a dean, he remains a professor in his department. Dean Olian below is also a Professor of Management, and perhaps Dean Welch is a professor in some department too. For some such people, being fired from their administrative job would be no big deal. Others, though, have put themselves on an "administrative track" and would rather not return to teaching and research; most likely, if fired, they would seek administrative employment elsewhere, unless being fired has hurt their reputation as team players too much.
Here are the 4 I could find ("Jill Fields" is not found by a directory search or on the web--- she presumably not being the Jill Fields at Fresno State. Maybe the newspaper got the name wrong.)
Directory entry for MARTIN W TRETHEWEY E-mail: [email protected] Address: 0336 LEONHARD BUILDING UNIVERSITY PARK, PA 16802 Telephone Number: +1 814 865 1961 Title: PROFESSOR MECHANICAL ENG Administrative Area: ENGINEERING Department: MECHANICAL ENGR Campus: UNIVERSITY PARK Directory entry for GORDON F DE JONG EduPerson Primary Affiliation: FACULTY Address: 506 OSWALD TOWER UNIVERSITY PARK, PA 16802 Telephone Number: +1 814 863 2277 Title: DIST PROF OF SOC/DEM DIR Administrative Area: LIBERAL ARTS Department: SOCIOLOGY Campus: UNIVERSITY PARK Name: JUDY D OLIAN E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://www.smeal.psu.edu Address: 0807 BUSINESS ADMIN BL UNIVERSITY PARK, PA 16802 Telephone Number: +1 814 863 0448 Fax Number: 814 865 7064 Title: DEAN BUS ADM/PROF OF MGMT Campus: UNIVERSITY PARK Office Address: 801 BAB Office Phone: 814 863 0448 Directory entry for SUSAN WELCH E-mail: [email protected] Address: 108 SPARKS BLDG UNIVERSITY PARK, PA 16802 Telephone Number: +1 814 865 7691 Fax Number: 1 814 863-2085 Title: DEAN CLG OF THE LIBL ARTS Campus: UNIVERSITY PARKTo return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.