Fri 13 Nov 2009
Procedures for Visiting Professors
Posted by David Dudley Field '25 under Faculty at 11:59 am
The “Catch Mr. Bernard Moore” scandal has provided EphBlog with occasion to consider the procedures by which Williams selects and reappoints visiting faculty. Many have expressed surprise and dismay over this description from an anonymous Williams professor.
In my department, standard operating procedure for hiring a visitor would vary depending on the origin of the position. If, say, Professor X went on leave and the college gave us the go-ahead to replace his slot, it would usually be wholly in the hands of the chair to find a suitable replacement and to vet his or her credentials. This procedure could well be as insular as the chair calling up some friends at graduate programs that have a strong scholarly presence in what Professor X does, and then bringing on an ABD grad student. This person’s CV might be circulated among the senior faculty of the department for them to sign off on it, but, basically, it’s a low commitment/low stress process. It won’t surprise you to hear that it’s also a process that is basically at chance in securing someone with any talent in teaching. National searches with interviews and job talks and all that stuff, however, is thought to be just too much of a pain to do for a one year visitor.
An anonymous professor from an unknown institution agrees. Williams Professor Peter Just writes in response:
I (obviously) don’t know what department’s procedures for hiring visitors was described by my anonymous colleague. But I can assure readers that they are unlike the procedures used by my department (Anthropology & Sociology) over the past twenty years. When practicable, we run a national search, interview candidates, bring finalists to campus where they present papers, are interviewed by students and all of the department faculty, etc. Even so, we sometimes get visitors who don’t work out, but I’d say that my department’s procedures are more typical than those described by my anonymous colleague.
Are these descriptions really in dispute? It is always helpful to focus on specific cases. Over the last few years, the Anthropology & Sociology Department has had these visitors.
2008-2009: Visiting Assistant Professor: HAUGH
2007–2008: Visiting Assistant Professors: HAUGH, RULIKOVA. Bolin Fellow: MULLA.
2006–2007: Visiting Professors: DOWNEY, PRAZAK. Visiting Assistant Professor: BESSETT
2005–2006: Visiting Assistant Professor: STANCZAK. Bolin Fellow: CASTOR
2004-2005: Distinguished Visiting Professor: ERIKSON. Visiting Assistant Professor: STANCZAK
So, over 5 years, Anthropology & Sociology has hosted 9 visitors in various categories. It would be great to get more detail from Professor Just, or anyone else, about the exact procedure by which these professors came to Williams. (My understanding is that the department would have had little, if any, role in the selection of the Bolin Fellows.) Was a “national search” run for each of the other 7 visitors? Where were job advertisements placed? How many applications were received? How many candidates were interviewed for each position? How many were brought to campus to give talks, meet with students and so on?
New faces in 2007-2008 . . . and some that we’ve seen before. Prof. Kai Erikson will return to ANSO as Visiting Distinguished Professor of Sociology in Fall 2007. Some of you will remember Kai from his two previous visiting stints in the department. A return of a different sort will be made by Wendi S. Haugh ’91, who will be Visiting Assistant Professor of Anthropology in 2007-2008, having completed her PhD at Penn and a year as a visiting professor at Oberlin.
Call me a cynic, but I doubt that a “national search” was done to decide who the visiting professor would be in 2004-2005 if Prof. Kai Erikson had already visited Williams once. (I don’t know why he didn’t end up visiting in 2007-2008.) I also expect (and applaud!) that Wendi Haugh ’91 might have had a bit of the insider track for her position.
Also:
Some of you may remember Prof. Troy Duster (right), who taught in the department as a Bernhard Professor more than a decade ago. He returned to Williams in February 2006 to participate in a panel discussion on the subject of genomic research and changing concepts of race.
New faces in 2006-2007. Next fall, the department will be joined by two visiting sociologists. Danielle Bessett, a student of Troy Duster’s who is completing her doctorate at NYU, will offer courses on gender, family, and medical sociology, among other things.
Something tells me that the graduate student of a former member of the department might have had an advantage in the process. How many other candidates did the department bring to campus to compete with Bessett?
Obviously, none of this is to doubt the accuracy of Professor Just’s description or the conduct of the Anthropology & Sociology Department. Peter Just is one of the great professors at Williams and ANSO is a wonderful department. But I bet that, once we get into the details, the procedures used in ANSO will not prove to be that different from the ones described by Just’s anonymous colleague, at least in some of these specific cases.
We have several faculty readers. How do things work in your department?
Print
• Email
| « Catch Mr. Bernard Moore: Legal Documents | Symposium Postponed » |
71 Responses to “Procedures for Visiting Professors”
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
JG says:
Except that the entire point of your post is to doubt the accuracy of what Prof. Just described. You used his department as the example, and you stated that they likely didn’t follow the prcoess he described.
If you want to dispute his account, dispute it, but don’t lie about it.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:17 pmDavid says:
JG: Calm down. Did you read what Professor Just said?
Emphasis added. I believe that both Professor Just and our anonymous professor are telling the truth. I think that, sometimes, interviewing multiple candidates for visiting spots is practicable and sometimes it isn’t. If, for each of those 9 visitors over the last 5 years, the department had interviewed 2 other candidates, then that would be one thing. Do you think that is what happened?
I also bet (and I am looking into this) that sometimes the other department runs searches, interviews multiple candidates and so on for visiting spots. Note the phrase “standard operating procedure.”
November 13th, 2009 at 12:25 pmRonit says:
Worth citing this comment by AnonProf as well.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:26 pmJG says:
@David: I’m quite calm, I just found the tone of your entire post to dispute his claim. Perhaps you should write more clearly if that was not your intent.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:28 pmkthomas says:
David: calm down!
November 13th, 2009 at 12:35 pmmidprof says:
While I am still praying that the original “anon williams prof” is actually not a williams prof, hu’s distinction between two kinds of appointments is useful:
1) the “someone’s going on leave, we need a replacement” kind of hire, for which (in my experience, not hu’s) a truncated version of a TT search is held,
and
2) the “hey, famous guy x is available, are we interested”? kind of thing (for which someone from outside a department may even include funding).
“truncated’ in the former case because searches are expensive and you can usually find a good, even great person for a one-year appointment without having 4-5 visitors to campus (after review of application letters, cv’s, references, etc.)
the latter kind of case is ripe for associated problems of deference in vetting. these must be addressed. but it’s also ripe for bringing people of incredible experience (not always scholarly) to campus.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:44 pmanonsunited says:
I hope it is now clear why some profs choose to post here anonymously. Professor Just tried to make a meaningful contribution to this discussion. His reward? A close examination of all the recent visiting hires in his department with insinuations that most of them did not go through the proper process but instead got their jobs through good connections. There is, of course, no actual evidence offered for these insinuations. Now these lucky folk have their names forever linked on the internet to a guy who who committed massive fraud and is going to jail.
For those of you who scream in indignation about profs who post anonymously here, fine, change the rules and do not allow anonymous posts. But any prof. (or other person professionally involved with Williams) is opening themselves up to to be the brunt of Kane’s weird obsessions if they post under their actual name.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:45 pmmidprof says:
@anonsunited – agreed. I meant to add that Prof. Just’s descriptions were much closer to my own experience than AnonWillProf’s.
I just pulled up the Smith College Department Chair Handbook (no doubt many others are available w/o passwords), for those who prefer printed college guidance to anonymous posts, and with apologies for the long post, I’ll paste in below what it says. Sorry for the formatting. If you google “Smith College Department Chair Handbook” you can see it yourself:
Applying for Non-Tenure-track Positions
Applications for non-tenure-track (NTT) positions tend to fall into one of two categories:
1) the replacement of regular faculty on leave without pay, medical leave or
administrative assignment (sabbatical leaves and course releases for Senior Lecturers are
generally not replaced), and 2) the hiring of faculty to allow departments and programs to
offer courses beyond those that can be covered by regular members of the department.
1. When a regular faculty member is scheduled to go on a “replaceable” leave, the
department chair or program director should consult with the Associate Provost
and Dean for Academic Development about a replacement.
a. Generally, faculty on leaves of more than one year will be replaced by a
single individual appointed for the full duration of the leave. Once the
replacement has been authorized, the Associate Provost will email a form
with an authorization number, the significant conditions of employment
and an appropriate starting salary. The procedures for hiring that
individual are essentially the same as those for hiring into the tenure track.
A national search for an entry-level Visiting Assistant Professor is
normally required and this office will cover the standard recruitment
expenses. Susan Kulig is the person in our office with whom to consult on
placing ads and running a search. Remember that the interview list needs
the approval of the Associate Provost before the candidates are invited to
campus. The Associate Provost may ask the department or program to
add a candidate to the interview list if he feels that a well-qualified
minority candidate has been overlooked. The on-campus interview
schedule for each candidate should include a meeting with the Associate
Provost, and the candidates’ CVs, graduate school transcripts and letters of
recommendation should be sent to the Associate Provost prior to the
interviews. Beginning in 2009-10, all faculty searches must be conducted
using People Admin. (Please see “Searches and Appointments” at
http://www.smith.edu/deanoffaculty/searches.php.) Replacement faculty
will typically teach a five-course load. There is no expectation of
reappointment for these positions and candidates must be informed of
this in advance.
b. Faculty on a leave of one year or less may be replaced either by a single
November 13th, 2009 at 1:58 pmindividual or by more than one individual on a course-by-course basis, depending upon the needs of the department, the available pool of
candidates, the burden on the Faculty Salary Pool and the availability of
faculty offices. Where individual courses are to be covered, Five-
College borrowing is preferred. The procedures for hiring outside the
Five Colleges do not normally require a national search, although
departments and programs are strongly encouraged to cast a wide net in
seeking candidates, particularly for full-time, one-year appointments. This
is especially so if there is a possibility that the person hired might be hired
again for an additional year. A rigorous search at this stage may obviate
the need for another search in the year to come. When in doubt, consult
with the Associate Provost. This office will cover reasonable expenses for
a search. Candidate interviews with the Associate Provost are not
normally required, but the Associate Provost must be consulted before an
informal offer is made. Before approving the informal offer, the Associate
Provost will need the chosen candidate’s CV, and in cases of full-year,
full-time hires, the candidate’s graduate school transcript and letters of
recommendation.
David says:
midprof,
Perhaps I am misreading this, but doesn’t the Smith handbook match well with Anon Prof’s description? The vast majority of visitors (at Williams) are here for a year or less. (Even Moore had to be appointed to a new (and different) visiting position then the one he started with.) So, the comparison is with part b.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:21 pmmidprof says:
@David, I wasn’t offering it as proof of my experience but as an instantiation of a class we keep imagining rather than documenting. At my college, for example, an interview with the Dean is required of these visitors, even those here for one term. But, even in the Smith description, I do think you’ve managed to choose everything that allows for laxity and exclude everything that suggests rigor.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:48 pmDavid says:
anonsunited writes:
When I explain something to Williams students, do you know what “reward” I am looking for? Hard questions! Probing critiques! Worthwhile challenges! The last thing I want my students to do is to just accept what I tell them, like a 18 month old eating her baby food. What do you look for?
1) Isn’t “close examination” exactly what we want to see in our discussions? Isn’t that what Williams taught us to do? You would prefer “cursory” or “lackadaisical” examinations instead?
2) What “proper process” are you talking about? As best I can tell, there is no official “proper process” at Williams. (Note to self: Check Faculty Handbook.) I was checking to see to what extent the process that Professor Just described for his own department matches his own description. Does the department really do national searches, invite multiple candidates to campus, allow student interviews and so on? I am sure that they do.
But I also bet that they don’t do this in all cases. Do you disagree? Let’s bet!
And, again, to be clear: Professor Just never said that they did. The phrase “When practicable” is doing some important work, work that JG (and you) may have missed.
Which brings us back to Peter Frost, one of JG’s former professors, I think.
Imagine that we were in a Williams classroom with Peter Frost as the professor. Imagine that we had before us two different descriptions of the hiring process for visiting professors at school X. Imagine that JG had concluded that they contradicted each other. What would Peter Frost say to his student?
I bet that he would say, “Not so fast! Let us look at these texts closely. Let us consider some other evidence beyond the texts themselves. Let us consider the motivations of everyone involved.”
That is, at least, what I am doing here.
3) You use the words “good connections” as if they are bad thing. Untrue! Connections make the world go round. You really think that connections don’t play a part in the hiring by the Williams ANSO Department? Hah! How naive you are . . .
And, obviously, no one has suggested that these professors are anything but excellent. I am sure that the Department would not have had Kai Erikson back three times if he weren’t wonderful.
I am just clarifying for (too) many readers that these two descriptions of the process are not nearly as conflicting as an undiscerning reader might suppose.
I like to think (hope!) that Professor Just would applaud my efforts . . .
Hah! I provided three concrete examples of connections between individual visitors and the department. How much more evidence do you need? Now, it could have been that, in all three cases, the department did a nation-wide search with multiple candidates coming to campus, student interviews and so on. Want to bet?
November 13th, 2009 at 2:55 pmDavid says:
I am just pointing out that the original description (common operating procedure as: no national search, no competing candidates coming to campus for talks/interviews) is much more common than people seem to want to believe.
And, for what its worth, I see nothing wrong with this. I think it would be a waste of time and money to put so much effort into one year hires. I probably have different criteria than some Williams faculty for these hires: I want much better teachers. But I have no complaints with a process that does not have national searches, multiple candidate visits, student interviews and so on.
Let’s pick a department far away from political science and ANSO, a department that everyone loves, perhaps the biggest academic success at Williams of the last two decades: Math/Stat. How do they hire visitors?
November 13th, 2009 at 2:59 pmrory says:
there’s got to be a lolcat for this, right?
ephblog is not a williams classroom. Peter Just kindly providing his view is not the same as a teacher in a classroom. Your examination is absurd–only one example of a likely non-national search (Professor Erikson who had already proven himself a valuable addition to the department after a previous, likely national, search) and one case in which a connection likely helped but which has no evidence it was a truncated search (when there are hundreds of applicants for a job, connections help).
this line: “But I bet that, once we get into the details, the procedures used in ANSO will not prove to be that different from the ones described by Just’s anonymous colleague, at least in some of these specific cases.” is still completely unproven and presents Peter Just’s description of the process as an obfuscation of reality, no matter what you say a couple sentences earlier.
sorry, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. There are three options:
-Just was telling the truth
-Just was flat out lying
-Just is a PR pro who used the term “practicable” to obfuscate the reality that it rarely involves a meaningful search.
so which are you claiming?
November 13th, 2009 at 3:54 pmMichael F. Brown says:
David Kane brings new meaning to the saying “No good deed goes unpunished.” Everything that my ANSO colleague Peter Just said earlier is accurate and applies to the visitors shown above, with minor exceptions:
–Bolin Fellows, who teach only one course and are reviewed via an application but no on-site interview. (It’s a fellowship, not primarily a teaching position.)
–Our senior visiting colleague Kai Erikson, one of the most famous sociologists in America and a repeat visitor because of his demonstrated success in the Williams classroom after a lifetime teaching at Yale.
As Peter implied in his comment, vetting procedures may be truncated (1) for fractional appointments that become available at the last minute; (2) for any visiting appointment that comes up late in the previous academic year because of an unexpected medical leave, administrative appointment, etc., of a regular member of the department. The latter essentially constitute emergency hires. Under these circumstances, ANSO and other departments at Williams have little choice but to turn to regional networks to find suitable candidates as quickly as possible.
Despite what some Ephblog posters believe, it can be extremely difficult to hire faculty for visiting positions at Williams, especially if their appointments are part-time or for only a semester. Williams pays considerably less to visitors than to faculty on regular appointments. Part-timers may not receive full benefits or any benefits. If their permanent residence is in Boston, NYC, or New Haven, they face brutal commutes; much of their modest earnings will be spent on transportation or local apartment rental. The Williams teaching environment is one of the most demanding anywhere, and student expectations are high. This can be a shock for all new faculty, but especially for visitors who may be young, inexperienced, and focused on securing full-time employment elsewhere.
The College’s stated policy is to have as many classes as possible taught by regular, long-term faculty, since this allows for the greatest quality control. As others have pointed out, many visiting faculty teach fine courses–in some cases, exceptionally good ones. Others are less successful. That’s in the nature of hiring everywhere.
Time to move on to real issues, y’all.
November 13th, 2009 at 4:51 pmJeffZ says:
Thanks Professor Brown for a dose of reality.
November 13th, 2009 at 4:54 pmJeffZ says:
Oh, and off topic but since you are posting here, I realize the Stetson-Sawyer project is indefinitely on hold, but whenever it resumes, I look forward to the resumption of your illuminating updates and commentary.
November 13th, 2009 at 4:55 pmJG says:
@David: I’ve said this before but you clearly haven’t gotten it, so I’ll repeat. Do not speak for me. Do not use me in your examples. Do not make assertions about what I think or would have concluded. Do not make statements about what professors I have or have not had or connections I have to them unless you are linking or quoting directly. I have no desire to be associated with anything you say.
November 13th, 2009 at 5:02 pmDavid says:
I appreciate the time that Professor Brown has taken to comment here. With luck, we are iterating to agreement!
We began with 9 visitors to the ANSO Department over the last 5 years: HAUGH, RULIKOVA, MULLA, DOWNEY, PRAZAK, BESSETT, STANCZAK, CASTOR and ERIKSON.
Professor Brown has kindly confirmed that, for three of these (MULLA, CASTOR and ERIKSON), there was no other candidates giving talks, interviewing with students and so on. And that is OK! This does not contradict what Professor Just told us. And it is a perfectly good policy. I am sure Kai Erikson is a great professor and, if he is willing to visit Williams in 2010-2011, I would be happy to have him. There is no need to look at other candidates.
Anyway, we are left with the other 6 visitors. For how many of those visiting positions did ANSO?
It could be all 6.
This all makes perfect sense. I am afraid that some folks are interpreting my commentary here to be a criticism of how Williams or ANSO operates. Untrue! This seems like a perfectly sensible way of doing things. I have no complaints.
My complaint is that some readers seem to read Professor Frost’s comments as providing evidence that directly contradicts the comments from the anonymous Williams professor. I don’t think so.
Professor Brown: Could you tell us how many of those six searches featured multiple finalists coming to campus?
November 13th, 2009 at 5:32 pmSam says:
Peter and Michael,
November 13th, 2009 at 5:46 pmYou have demonstrated why it is utterly futile to comment here.
As a member of the department involved in l’affaire Moore, I have quickly come to realize that it is best, for now, to refrain from commenting on this particular case: complex legal issues could be at stake (and for clarity’s sake: this is my own personal decision; I have not talked with anyone in the administration). But I can say that our general practice of hiring visitors is very much like yours; and our experience over the years is also very much like yours. Thus, we have been utterly shocked and saddened by the recent turn of events.
So that is now three named faculty members who are contradicting Kane. But he is impervious to reality. He will believe what he wants to believe and try to spin the rest (“iterating to agreement” is perhaps the most vapid example…).
David says:
“complex legal issues”?
Sam: Feel free to address this here or over at the Political Science Department blog, but I am honestly confused about what “complex legal issues” might be at stake here. Please educate us. There are hundreds of students, alumni and parents who would love to read your thoughts on the topic.
November 13th, 2009 at 5:53 pmSam says:
I am not a lawyer. I speak only for myself. I believe it is prudent to assume that Bernard will avail himself of vigorous legal counsel. Having been involved with this blog for many years, I know that you will be unable to understand this: you are fundamentally irresponsible.
November 13th, 2009 at 5:59 pmWill Slack '11 says:
David, STOP.
All six were hired via the procedure Just described. ALL SIX.
You are now turning to a critique of how ANSO operates its searches. That is separate from the procedure described by the anon prof.
You have, in short, taken the words that Just was kind enough to provide and thrown them back into his face. I hope that no other professor is so foolish; if anyone wants to contradict Kane in the future, I can pass anything along anonymously or set up an account for that person without any of his involvement.
Do you understand the above? Do you understand how rude you are being? Unfortunately, you don’t get to decide how other people interpret your words; the fact you have no problem with ANSO is not being communicated.
You are not communicating.
November 13th, 2009 at 6:07 pmDavid says:
“vigorous legal counsel”?
I should be so lucky! I have already heard some interesting stories about Moore’s attorney, Kenneth Robinson. Please, Mr. Robinson, leak to EphBlog! I am “irresponsible” enough to publish (almost) anything you send me.
November 13th, 2009 at 6:08 pmDerek says:
Look, anonsunited, Dave is a punk. But that is not reason for a Williams faculty member to be afraid to butt up against him. I do so on a regular basis and I am at a much less august institution than Williams. Sam Crane does. As do others. The “oh no,if I speak up and use my name Dave Kane will say mean things about me” argument sort of reinforces my point about courage, does it not? Let’s don’t confuse gutlessness with a sort of honor when we have concrete examples of faculty members who do stand up to Dave.
Furthermore, anonymity in this case gives people the right simply to assert without the ability of the rest of us to cross examine. And that allows Dave to value equally an anonymous professor (has anyone else noticed how these sock puppets conveniently arrive on the scene like a deus ex machina whenever it is convenient to Dave’s argument?) whose argument happens to gibe precisely with Dave against every professor who has actually given their name here who have argued otherwise.
dcat
November 13th, 2009 at 6:25 pmkthomas says:
Hmmm. Is contributing to violating the Rules of Evidence a crime? Regardless Mr. Robinson is not going to risk disbarment for you, David. Please, return to reality sometime.
November 13th, 2009 at 6:25 pmkthomas says:
Peter, Michael (and Sam):
First, sincere thanks for your comments.
To Sam’s point, there are points where I really don’t get David (Derek’s point notwithstanding). Regardless, while he is usually the loudest and often the most annoying drunk in the room, he is almost mostly harmless. Except when he isn’t. Often he is best, when simply ignored.
As for engaging in discussion with him, sometimes… well, I was involved in an altercation with a 12-year-old want-to-be neonazi on the steps of the Cathedral in Koeln on Wednesday, and… with Derek’s comment, I suspect you’ve got it.
Regardless again, David’s is not the only conversation going on here. And it shouldn’t interrupt a more useful conversation. It matters that you add detail and moreover accuracy, to this conversation.
November 13th, 2009 at 6:32 pmkthomas says:
David: presuming I were Moore, and presuming the College did not call immediately to inform me of the lock change and provide a convenient way to access or retrieve my property from the office 24/7, I’d litigate on that matter. And so on and so on.
Speaking from the point of view of the numerous seminars I’ve attended over the years on hiring/employment: even if and especially if Moore is ‘of a criminal mind,’ the legal complexities and threats and potential pitfalls abound.
If the College has not warned Sam about the pitfalls of commenting publically or privately, it should. Moore very well could litigate against the College and Sam, on a number of theories, claiming that offhand comments by Sam or someone else damaged ‘his career.’ (You might be amazed by what information the Rules exclude from being provided to a jury).
And so forth.
November 13th, 2009 at 6:49 pmAlexander Woo says:
How I was hired at my current, full-time temporary job (which was originally the result of a failed tenure-track search):
An advertisement was made on one of the usual websites for my discipline. I sent in the usual application materials. They looked at all the applications and brought me (and only me) in for an interview. They decided I was good enough and hired me the day after I got back home.
I was somewhat of an exception; an advertised national search for visitors is frequently not done. To save money and time, it’s fairly common to find a recent PhD from the nearest university (and only one PhD granting one within 100+ miles), interview him or her (usually a full day affair including a talk), and hire him or her if he or she is acceptable. The time element is probably more important than the money element; if it’s mid April or later, there simply is no time to conduct an advertised national search.
The practicality of a full search depends greatly on the field and the time of year. If the History department knows in September they needed a full-time temporary person for the following year, they could get someone quite good doing a national search. If an Economics professor resigns mid-May, the college is entirely dependent on the Economics Chair’s connections to find anyone with a PhD in economics who can speak English.
November 13th, 2009 at 7:02 pmAlexander Woo says:
Re: Math – since I am on the math job market, I know, even if I’m not applying to Williams jobs… (and I’m not addressing the statistics part, because there is very little flexibility in having math professors teach stats and vice versa)
First, I believe that the department is staffed with the assumption that one full-time permanent mathematician takes leave every year.
For the 2007-2008 academic year, it was known that two mathematicians would be on leave. A full national search was run for the visitor.
For the 2009-2010 academic year, the person who accepted the tenure-track position asked and was granted a one year unpaid leave to spend a year in a postdoctoral position. (This is common for hires who are new PhDs; Professor Burger was granted a similar leave back when he was hired.) Therefore, a visitor had to be hired for the year. My recollection, though I was not watching closely, is that a full search was not done, though I believe the person hired was brought to campus for an interview. I do not know how this person was selected; they may have gone through the list of candidates for the tenure-track post until they found someone who was still available, or the senior members of the department may have used their connections.
November 13th, 2009 at 7:20 pmanonsunited says:
Derek–
Do you post about the school at which you teach on a blog devoted entirely to that school and run by someone with a well-earned reputation for absurd comments and baseless insinuations about it? If so, you are a brave, but perhaps insufficiently cautious man. I suppose I’m glad that professors such as Brown, Just, Crane, and others pop in here from time to time to speak truth to idiocy, as it were, but I think it’s a fact that every time they do, Kane does his best to rob them of a little dignity. Fortunately, they are all tenured professors and also happen to have plenty of dignity to spare.
As for this: “Let’s don’t confuse gutlessness with a sort of honor when we have concrete examples of faculty members who do stand up to Dave.” I certainly don’t think there’s some sort of “honor” in commenting anonymously on Ephblog. My personal standards for honor are a bit higher than that. But if someone chooses to post something anonymously for whatever reason, and what they post is true, I don’t necessarily think it’s gutlessness. If they post lies, then it’s worse than gutlessness, but that’s a different story. You are, of course, welcome to categorically dismiss anything posted anonymously. Sometimes you will benefit from doing so, other times not.
November 13th, 2009 at 7:39 pmhwc says:
a) I think that it is quite likely “Mr. Moore’s” attorney will contack DKane to leak some spin for his client. DKane routinely gets the players, includine Mary Jane Hitler’s idiot boyfriend.
b) I don’t see anything wrong with probing about hiring practices at Williams College. That’s what happens when a school “effs” up this badly. I mean after all is said and done, Williams College did hire a professor who never graduated from college and had spent time in a federal prison. I’m sorry if professors and/or administrators at the College don’t like the questions. There is going to have to be a lot of explaining to do.
c) I share David’s opinion that the process as descibed by Prof. Just sounds perfectly reasonable. If this is a system in place school-wide, then we have to focus on what broke down specifically in “Moore” hiring as opposed to a systemic problem.
d) The issue not addressed so far is how could such a terrible teacher be rehired for a second year’s appointment?
November 13th, 2009 at 10:48 pmDerek says:
Anonsunited —
But my biggest concern is placing equal value on matters such as hiring processes on anonymous alleged faculty members and on real faculty members who have laid out the way things work in their departments. Anonymity is usually harmless. Except when it isn’t. And in those cases I am going to continue to harp on this issue. Again: the sock puppetry of anonymous commenters always seem to prop up either to validate Dave’s arguments just a little too perfectly or to defend him when a critical mass of opinion has emerged against him. And then Dave uses those comments as evidence equally valid to that of actual people who give their names. For Dave unsubstantiated anonymous sources are equally valid as substantiated sources. Even journalists, who tend to have pretty shitty standards on these things (Deep throat ain’t just a movie, folks) have far higher standards.
Oh, and to be fair: When I have donned my journalist/pundit/columnist hat there have been a handful of circumstances where I have used anonymous sources. And those were: Cases of Africans from oppressive regimes who I knew personally and whose veracity I could vouch for, and whose physical safety and that of their families could well be in jeopardy were their names to be known. And I can think of three, maybe four times when I have done that in the years I have been writing on African affairs for the Foreign Policy Association, for which I have written about 1700 blog posts, articles, think pieces, analyses, and so forth, and for other sources. I am quite certain no one writing here qualifies for any of those special circumstances. Though I may be wrong — care to compare?
hwc is simply fighting straw men.There is zero indication that the college is not taking this seriously. None.
Oh — and we keep repeating this “terrible teacher” meme. What, exactly, is our evidence for “terrible” teaching? It sounds like this guy is a complete scumbag. But why not allow the process to play out and stop presuming knowledge that very, very few of us actually have?
dcat
November 13th, 2009 at 11:18 pmPTC says:
dcat is right.
When people start to use specifics in a case like this, that is this serious, and they are claiming a knowledge of specific procedures gained through insider information that is well beyond the scope of common knowledge- then that information should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
I have been anon here for years, and it is limiting in that you have to be careful not to use information that is not public knowledge, especially if you are making a derogatory statement about a specific individual.
Maybe these people are going on record with college administrators… but who knows.
November 14th, 2009 at 6:43 amPTC says:
http://www.ephblog.com/2005/09/14/seniors-embrace-serendipity/#comments
I believe we have had positive reviews of visiting profs in the past here on Ephblog. This post from 2005…
The prof mentioned in this page appears to have been a visitor, and he got this Eph a job…
November 14th, 2009 at 11:08 amDerek says:
I just think we need to be wary with our generalizations here as well. Williams often invites renowned scholars and teachers to spend a short time at Williams. The history department has as a visitor a first-rate historian in a chaired visiting post. I’m sure he was invited, which can be a form of vetting in its own way. The most recent Journal of Southern History arrived in my mailbox this week and one of the articles is a 28-page reveiw essay on this person’s recent biography of LBJ.
I know this person (I went to grad school with his son, a fine young historian) and reject the idea that at a certain point Williams cannot appoint scholars and teachers of distinction to visiting positions. We are throwing the baby out with the bathwater while allowing this recent ugliness to taint the very idea of visiting professors, in the process smearing the many who do fine work because our current line of vision is occupied by one who violated all that we care deeply about.
In any case: Beat the ‘Herst. I’d have been up there for Homecoming and the Octet events, but today is Mrs. Dcat’s birthday.
dcat
November 14th, 2009 at 11:50 amhwc says:
35:
I haven’t seen anyone arguing that it is improper to invite a distinguished academic to fill a visiting seat, whether as a leave-replacement or endowed visiting chair. Unless I’ve missed some posts, nobody here has suggested that a national search should (or could) be conducted for every visting professor.
The question being considered is what happened in this case, where someone with no apparent academic accomplishments and no teaching experience was hired and then reappointed for a second year despite obvious, widespread student disatisfaction with his teaching.
November 14th, 2009 at 12:02 pmPTC says:
hwc- the argument has been that visitors have been sub par in the past… my concern would be that you are going to have a damn hard time finding people who are in fields of endeavor other than academics if you hold them to academic standards, which appears to be the standards that David is suggesting.
The CEO of a fortune 500 company may not be the most well read and published academic on the planet… nor does it qualify him/her to be a full time prof instantly at a place like Williams… but you all are damn fools if you do not think there is value added by having some visiting people who are renowned in their fields… lawyers, politicians, high ranking military members, business people… and many other folks would have something to add, a niche to fill, to a more mature group of students.
As Dcat suggests- you guys are throwing the baby out with the bath water… it’s a bad idea.
November 14th, 2009 at 1:34 pmhwc says:
I haven’t seen anyone here suggest never hiring a visiting professor of high accomplishment in a non-academic field. For example, my daughter’s college brought in Denis Haliday who resigned his post as the UN head of humanitarian relief in Iraq in 1998 stating that the international sanctions were genocide. He was a very high profile guy with a 35 year career in humaniarian relief at the United Nations.
What I am suggesting is that Williams figure out how it came to hire a guy with no academic accomplishments and (if it’s even true) a couple years as a staffer for back bench Congressman. This is Williams College. Bring in the ex-Congressman as a visiting professor. I can’t see one single aspect of “Mr. Moore’s” alleged resume that would make him even remotely qualified to teach at Williams College and, certainly nothing to warrant a re-appointment.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:33 pmDerek says:
hwc —
If you have not been reading the posts closely enough over the past few days to see the broad strokes with which people are painting visiting professors as a response to the Moore situation then I cannot help you. Willful ignorance is still ignorance.
dcat
November 14th, 2009 at 3:47 pmPTC says:
hwc- perhaps you were “not here” or you “have forgotten” but dude… Dave is clearly on record in the past advocating for the cutting of all visiting profs. There is no doubt about it, David does not think Williams should have visiting professors… David does not think they are qualified… David thinks they earn too much… right or wrong, Davids point of view on visitors is clearly documented here on ephblog…
A part of all this noise is just another “angle of attack” to advocate for the firing of all visiting profs by Dave. Kane control. Don’t get me wrong… I like David… but man… anyone who does not see this at least in part for what it is, as dcat states, has not been paying any attention at all.
Look… you do not have to take my word for it… read Davids own posts on the matter…
http://www.ephblog.com/2009/04/05/12-cut-visiting-professors/
November 14th, 2009 at 3:59 pmhwc says:
I’m aware of David’s position on reducing the use of visiting professors, but I have not seen him make that argument in this case.
As I read David’s posts regarding the “Mr. Moore” situation, I see nothing that would constitute a rejection of visiting professors. He may not like them, but he is discussing them as a fact of life and has even pointed out that hiring them without a national search is perfectly reasonalble.
Rather than suggest that I am not reading David’s arguments, I believe the real problem is people reading arguments into his threads on this topic that aren’t their.
Just to be very clear:
a) I believe that “Mr. Moore” had no business ever being considered as a visiting professor at Williams College. Nothing in his fraudulent background made him even remotely qualified, either as an academician or a leading figure in a non-academic field.
b) I believe that the process that led to the hiring of “Mr. Moore” was deeply flawed and that Williams College has some serious explaining to do.
c) I don’t know where the blame lies: the poli sci dept? the Provost’s office? Or somebody else with sufficient clout to simply dictate the hiring. I would not be surprised if the blame lands at Morty Schapiro’s feet, but that is a pure hunch.
d) Re-appointing “Mr. Moore” for an additional year in the face of shocking student assessment of his disinterest and iincompetence is the most troubling part of the whole story. Again Williams College has some very serious explaining to do, IMO.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:14 pmDavid says:
To clarify:
1) I believe that Williams uses too many visiting professors.
2) Irrespective of 1), I agree with hwc’s summary a) through d).
Even if you think that Williams should have visiting professors and even if Bernard Moore had not been a crook and even if you think that appointing him for one year was reasonable, there is no excuse for re-appointing him, after he had already demonstrated that he was an incompetent teacher with no research output. If, instead, he had demonstrated a talent for Williams teaching, I might very well have voted to re-appoint him.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:35 pmTim says:
Do you gentlemen have wives or children or jobs? Why are you obsessing over the sad affair of a man whose life is largely over? He didn’t hurt Williams. Williams has had many bad teachers before, and they certainly will have more in the future, just as they’ve had many terrible students (present company excepted, of course). You can’t predict good teaching with much certainty, especially among recent Ph.D’s. In fact, Dr. Moore probably contributed more to the college than most VPs. The events he helped organize were wonderful. (I live in the community.) It’s just an unfortunate story. That’s all. It’s not worth your time on earth to express such anger.
November 14th, 2009 at 6:05 pmDerek says:
Tim —
But it’s worth your time to weigh in on others weighing in on this issue? My hypocrisy detector will self destruct in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .
And boom goes the dynamite.
dcat
November 14th, 2009 at 9:48 pmRealityCheck says:
Derek = thank-you for the count down, it gave me time to seek shelter. I couldn’t agree more. Moore? ah… I agree whole heartedly. I will have to fund a suitable substitute for that word.
Tim: “didn’t hurt Williams”? I think the ship took a 18 lb cannon ball below the water line. It has caused damage both internally and externally. Not sinking but it requires immediate attention.
1. This wasn’t just a “bad teacher”. Williams had a convicted felon teaching students and no one knew it. 2. From the majority of reports Williams had a convicted felon teaching extremely poorly and people knew it but did nothing about it. 3. He lied to you. He lied to everyone at Williams – doesn’t honor and integrity mean something today? By making you part of his lie he diminished himself and the college at the same time.
Students have a contract with the college both written and unwritten: The college requires significant performance in order to be even considered for admission. The best students in the country/world are encouraged to compete for admission based upon promises of an exceptional educational experience. Not the best athletic facility, not the best library – but the best teaching and learning environment.
Students are then obligated to pay a significant sum of money each year for this privilege. The way in which a student experiences this great education is by taking 4 classes a semester. And when one of those classes, or 25% of your learning opportunity is given over to a complete fraud then you have been harmed and so has the college.
And finally, when you graduate the value of your education, evidenced by your diploma, is based largely upon the reputation of the college (see honor and integrity above). Similar to the value of US currency I suppose. So major mistakes like Mr. Moore do matter. And every effort should be made to make certain it is not repeated.
November 15th, 2009 at 12:13 amPTC says:
Reality/ Derek/ David/- Will the college refund the students who took these classes?
JG/ Jeffz- Could a student sue the school for a refund and other damages because of this?
November 15th, 2009 at 2:05 amjeffz says:
I am having a hard time coming up with a credible theory of suing the college. It wouldn’t be a tort as there was no intentional wrongdoing, or anything approaching that. Plus there is no tangible injury in any event; there is no legally cognizable harm. So it would have to be a contract theory, and the students’ received the benefit of their bargain — they attended classes, received grades, and so on. They knew (as much as the college did) what professor they were signing up for; no one forced them to take his classes. If you could sue for classes and/or professors that were not as good as expected or hoped for, well, then every college in the country would be exposed to potential liability; it would have to be something more, like a professor who simply never showed up for class or something. So in short, I’d say no.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:15 amPeter Just says:
I think it might be useful to review the actual facts surrounding this whole business, at least as far as we know them right now.
1. The College hired Mr. Moore in a visiting capacity; he later pled guilty to a serious white-collar crime. Apparently someone forgot to run him through the Acme Cryptofelon Detector we keep in the basement of Hopkins Hall.
2. There is anecdotal evidence Mr. Moore was a poor classroom teacher.
3. Mr. Moore seems to have good contacts in Washington, evidenced in particular by his role in organizing a visit of the Black Congressional Caucus just after the election and a similar event that had to be cancelled on account of 1).
Taken all together, this strikes me as unfortunate, but hardly the Worst Thing that has happened to the College since the Defection of 1821. Perhaps Mr. Moore’s contributions to the College were more substantial outside the classroom than in it, but this isn’t the first time a visiting instructor hasn’t panned out, nor will it be the last.
Could we all take a deep breath and get a grip?
November 15th, 2009 at 3:57 pmjeffz says:
Professor Just, the next time Ephblog’s response to an unfortunate situation such as this (especially, alas, where it involves an opportunity for the angry white male brigade to blow off steam) is remotely proportionate will be the first, alas.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:07 pmKen Thomas '93 says:
Peter: than you for the summary; which rubriek I haven’t seen here so far for some reason. Thank you as well for a number of lessons, which in part made the rather intense past week of my life possible.
I have no immediate comment on what is going on here. As I look at things, the exercise(s) which is/are ephBlog, are valuable insomuch as they serve a microcosm to explore the larger questions and dynamics at play in our world.
But there seems to be a lot of folly at play.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:40 pmkthomas says:
Similar to the value of US currency? Oh…
Now there is a most relevant comment.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:14 pmhwc says:
I don’t think it’s great strategy for Williams College to be scolding its alumni to “get a grip” over this incident.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:56 pmHenry Bass says:
Even criminals should be dealt with justly and humanely. Even if Mr Moore is guilty as hell, Williams, should deal with him with more justice and humanity than the state of Mississippi deals with its African-American criminals. As a radical pacifist I get a zine called WIN magazine published by the War Resisters League. None of us, who have written for WIN, really believes in prisons or the retributionary justice system. A pal of mine wrote a poem years ago saying “Tear down all jails now. All jails tear down. Jails tear. etc.” Repeat with permutations after permutattions 200 times.
There was a great article by a black woman in the current WIN, who argued that we should not judge any person by the worse act he/she does in his lifetime. Even someone who murders a cop. Even the person who does the most evil act you can imagine. I think of the crazy fellow at Ft. Hood. But no one is totally evil. He may have been kind to some of his patients. He may have done some little good in his life. There may be some folks who love him. And at least Mr Moore did something for the folks in prison. At least James Hoffa became active in prison reform once he was in prison. Which is more than most prisoners do.
If Williams can find no compasssion as well as justice in dealing with Mr. Moore, then its no better than the State of Missippit. And stop giving me all this crap about the superiority of Ephdom.
It is a sad situation. But, Williams can show it colors by whether or not in can deal with this problem in more than a routine way.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:00 pmrory says:
@hwc: I don’t think it’s great policy to present the words of a professor acting on his own volition as “strategy for williams college”
November 15th, 2009 at 7:01 pmkthomas says:
Henry:
Thank you as well.
I wish to give a brief summary of some longer thoughts (which I have tried to “write through” privately):
I have felt hatred and bloodlust towards Rachid Ramda, who, as far as I can tell, did have a role, at least financial, in the bombings at St. Michel– where I saw the wounded, and some of those who would die.
I did not permit myself to enter the courtroom during his trial, such was my hatred, my wish to kill this man, in return for what he did.
I also hope, to visit him in prison, and speak to him, to talk and try to understand. This is not something that would not be normal, as such things go; I have a letter to prosecutor, and a longer ‘demande’ to the French judiciary, in progress, but expect it is not likely.
I intent to be persistent.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:18 pmhwc says:
Henry:
I haven’t seen anyone here calling for “Mr. Moore’s” lynching or any other punishment that would warrant comparisons to Jim Crow Mississippi. I just want him gone.
I am more concerned with how “Mr. Moore” came to be at Williams College. I am perhaps EphBlog’s most consistent and vocal supporter of affirmative action hiring. To me, affirmative action carries a responsibility of hiring qualified people. I am apparently not as star-struck by “Washington connections” as others. I can’t identify a single qualification that warranted making “Mr. Moore” a professor at Williams College. That’s before we even consider that he came to Williams as a convicted felon who had served time in federal prison.
The attitude of “eh, so what, he was a lousy teacher” is troubling to me.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:33 pmPTC says:
I think we could stop a lot of injustice by legalizing drugs. I think it is very important to have people like Henry living among us, who can show us the greater side of humanity. This is not a really severe case… the man is non violent.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:38 pmaparent says:
hwc @52: I don’t think it’s a good idea for old alumni who disagree with helpful advice to label it as “scolding,” nor do I think it’s a good idea for an old alum to exhibit a complete lack of respect for a Williams professor and his voice of reason.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:12 pmHenry Bass says:
Our country has by far the largest number of people in prison of any civilized country. The American public is complicit in this outrage. At least Mr Moore opposed the American prison system. Maybe he oppossed the the American Gulag only because he was a criminal under American law. Maybe he fought for blacks only because he was black. He was still on the right side of these issues. And I’m far from comfortable about how may Ephs are on the right side of these issues. I see no mention of sympathy for Mr. Moore’s liberal stands in lots of the comments on this blog.
Certainly I agree completely with PTC that the war against drugs is the bigest source of all of America’s gulag. Something that our counrty will be condemned for 100 years from now.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:33 pmPTC says:
Henry- But I also have to admit, credit card fraud is serious, more serious than using drugs, especially if he stole other people’s identities… did he, or did he just invent his own?
As far as faking his degrees… I find it kind of funny that he pulled one over on academia. I just wish he had been a better professor. A lot of people can teach quite well from life experiences… it would have been cool if he had been one of the best teachers and hardest graders at Williams. Then, it would have really shaken the foundations some.
Must be kind of odd, running through life as someone you are not, waiting to be busted. All the publicity he created… man, strange character.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:11 pmhwc says:
RE #58
You pick your verbs, I’ll pick mine.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:38 amkthomas says:
@Henry Bass: It has come to mind– maybe he was prosecuted because he opposed the prison system and was politically involved. (I know what the pile fraud desk looks like; my former CEO took $100K from Ed, just to start, and while I did talk to an investigator about it, “there are bigger fish to fry” at the Federal level).
November 16th, 2009 at 6:23 amkthomas says:
@PTC (and Henry):
These are the very important details, I’m not sure we have, or are reporting accurately.
On another comparative note– I was surprised by the moral tone struck by Bethany McLean. Her interpretation seemed to turn on the “fact that no one knew;” and there seems to have been two cultures on these things.
The East Coast was outraged– on the West Coast, everyone knew– the East Coast culture described distributing options in IPOs as a scheme, with moral outrage for the market pumping with a worthless product– on the West Coast, my broker, my CEO’s broker, everyone’s broker, was doing this.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:54 amkthomas says:
Did he fake a degree, or did he enter a Ph.D. program without having completed an undergraduate degree? This may have been covered here, but I don’t see it.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:20 amkthomas says:
@kthomas: And as long as I’m here are trying to fill up the comments column– let’s perhaps remember Bethany’s comment that the same banks, which were the target of this alleged and so-called fraud, were handing $650,000 houses to homeless people on the street– so long as they had a social security number, anyone’s social security number– and then turning this into bonds which they sold as A+ to the Chinese, to the Russians, to school associations and retirement funds in Germany.
You can vacillate all you want about who knew and so forth– from the receiving end, what the US did, seems pretty clear in Germany and Sweden and Norway and Belgium. And you have just to look at the value of the dollar, to see the reaction.
What did Paul Samuelson just say about this? Inevitable?
November 16th, 2009 at 7:35 amPTC says:
Ke – Great point. Why were the banks so willing to lend into fraud? Why don’t prosecutors prosecute credit card theft and identity theft, especially if it is under 10k?
We really do need to re look at our drug laws. They are crushing our system, as well as killing our efforts in the GWOT. Not to mention, Mexico…
Hard drugs regulate themselves. If we made heroine perfectly legal… it is not like everyone is going to want to run out and get addicted to it. Just think of the money we could put back into treatment and education.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:46 amPTC says:
I mean… let’s be honest.. how many people see a meth/crack head and go- wow, I want to be just like that! Not the same thing as alcohol or marijuana at all.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:48 amkthomas says:
PTC: As an eBay-related seller, there was one weekend in which I saw a large amount of one of my electronics products come onto the market at a price far below what I could buy at wholesale, anywhere.
The seller account was a Vietnam veteran in upstate NY who had previously marketed electronic collar systems for dogs. It was highly unusual to see someone like this suddenly selling $300K in a different electronics category– over a few days– upsetting my market plan.
I began to contact the buyers, and eventually local police in the area. The buyers tried to contact the guy, couldn’t find him, eventually got his wife and he was missing. By mid-week, he had committed suicide.
No investigation– I tried. As far as I could tell and surmise, his accounts were probably compromised from Eastern Europe and the funds quickly moved.
This is also a Paypal story– at one point, if you read the filings closely, you would see that over 1/3 of Paypal’s profit was absorbed by fraud.
One wonders where the money went.
See Bethany for explication of “why credit was extended” so easily, in these matters [– edited for clarity, 93kwt]. Credit was not given (with caution); it was sold, as a product, as any other product. Global story– China and Mid East and Indonesian production coming on line– and the overall question, “how to store value?”
The $10K limit meant that everyone went under $10K to avoid prompting investigation– absolutely shortsighted.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:01 amDavid says:
He lied about having an undergraduate degree (from Puget Sound) when he applied to and was accepted at Claremont. He lied to Williams when he claimed to have an undergraduate degree from UCLA. I assume that he lied to Howard, but I am not sure which lie he told.
I am confused by all this talk about Bethany McLean. Has she commented? Links, please.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:47 amkthomas says:
David: thanks for the explication on the degrees; do we have substantiation of that from a source (which)?
Bethany: trying to draw out some comparative background material to credit extension & fraud, not this particular case. Sorry if it’s been unclear; I’ll look over and try to increase the roadmarks.
You lied to Williams?
November 16th, 2009 at 8:50 amHenry Bass says:
I certainly agree that credit card fraud is a serious crime and is far from victimless. And it undercuts Moore’s important work of prison reform. Being an idealist envolved in an important crusade, how could he let us down by jeopordizing his reform efforts with petty crimes?
This is a real tragedy. Still Moore is both a real idealist and a petty criminal. One can only hope that in the future he will choose to be the former and not the latter.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:55 am