@Consolation 's post 206 wins post of the day from me. =D>
Perhaps the student newspaper and the faculty can order some of these to keep around as mascots.
http://www.amazon.com/Toy-Vault-Rabbit-Plush-Pointy/dp/B0006JGNB0
http://www.toymania.com/columns/spotlight/hgrabbit.shtml
http://www.toyvault.com/montypython/index.html
I don’t think he did.
There are certain things that are, by law, confidential and can only be shared on a need-to-know basis, and even that’s limited. (For example, at the federal level, information about students’ grades; many states set limits on what information about personnel decisions can be released; and so on.) The sort of things that were released/leaked to the public from that meeting do not fall under any of those limits in any jurisdiction I am aware of.
I still don’t understand what the school can learn from a campus survey, that they can’t ask applicants as part of the admissions process? Why not do a better job vetting applicants instead of taking this approach?
One example would be that no one is obligated to disclose a learning disability in the admissions process.
Dfbdfb, I think you are making my larger point for me.
I was not referring to legal rights of privacy per se, but more to the ethical rights you would expect of people in a certain setting.
On several occasions, I’ve been in a room with my president and 4-5 other people. I knew that, barring the most egregious disclosures, what I heard and said was for that audience only. The assumption went both ways. Without a sense of privacy, I would not have been able to speak my own mind, and that would have included moments where I disagreed or even dissented.
As a case in point, I recently sat on an internal job search where I knew intimate and relevant things about the candidates. The president and academic VP sat ex officio on the committee. I HAD to trust in their silence on things I had to say. Implicitly, I gave them the same assurance. (To be quite specific, I had to recommend against a candidate who had supervisory power over me; I said bad things and had to trust that they would not be repeated.)
There comes a point where things are said that are so beyond the pale that you must betray that trust. But when you get there, its ugly. Normal rules stop applying and you improvise, take chances.
That’s what makes aspects of this case hard to handle.
If Newman had publicly made those bunny remarks, no problem. The guy’s a dick. Let’s turn him in. Likewise with his remarks about retention numbers. But they weren’t, as far as I know. That doesn’t get him off the hook. But if you have to judge him against policies or contracts, its going to get ugly.
The Steven Salaita case is crystal clear next to this one.
And they’re not obligated to disclose a disability after the admissions process either.
The faculty has voted, 87-3, to ask Newman to leave. From their letter:
Awaiting his response with great interest!
@Much2learn asked:
Anyone who has worked in higher ed long enough knows the markers of an at-risk student. The small, lower tier private colleges are supported by tuition, and so they accept these students because they have little choice. The public, open admission institutions do so as well. In the past few years, the average SAT scores of incoming freshmen have dropped significantly in many of the small private colleges in NJ, and regional public colleges like Rowan and TCNJ have seen increases. Probably the case in Maryland as well.
It doesn’t seem ethical to accept the students in the first place. It’s a discussion we faculty members often have. Faculty like myself and the others who have posted here do try to be sympathetic to our students’ circumstances. But we get large contingents of students who just do not care. And there are also many full time faculty who do not care (they don’t post here…). Add to this mix a large group of adjunct faculty with no office or office hours- and you’ve got a situation that gave rise to this whole issue. BTW, I am not condoning that president’s words or actions. While the Mt. Saint Mary’s mess may make for great press, the underlying issues are far more complex, widespread and systemic, as others have also pointed out.
I’m wondering if the difference of position @WasatchWriter and I have on whether Newman’s remarks should have been publicized (from an ethical point of view) comes mainly from different experiences with expectations of privacy. I’ve spent most of my career working at public institutions in Florida and Alaska, which both have incredibly strong open-records and information-access laws.* I don’t know where @WasatchWriter works, but if the “Wasatch” is indicative, Utah’s open-records laws aren’t nearly as open, and so there may be more of an expectation of privacy from that than what i have, which is to assume precisely nothing one says in a meeting is private.
No idea if I’m right about that, but throwing it out there as a possibility.
(FWIW, Maryland has relatively closed open-records laws, and MSM is a private institution, so that might lead to an expectation of privacy being more reasonable.)
- This is actually much of why "Florida Man" is a thing—the combination of very open open-records laws and a large population means that the weird isn't just present, it's easily findable.
The Washington Post Editorial:
The mess at ‘the Mount’
Large national newspapers, calling for your resignation, isn’t likely to make your list of 2015-2016 accomplishments…
To me, this discussion of “ethical” leaking or not seems besides the point. It sounds more like a legalistic than ethical discussion. The point of leaking is to publicize something that is wrongfully being done behind closed doors. I mean, did Nixon have a right to an assumption of privacy when he bombed Cambodia, such that the leaking of the Pentagon Papers was UNethical??
To me, this is textbook whistleblowing. When someone is behaving in a way detrimental to the folks he or she is supposed to be leading, then release of that information, so constituents can make decisions and act, is highly ethical.
What’s Up With the Mounts Saint Mary (NY not Maryland)?
This video is hilarious. :))
[The controversy has attracted more and more national interest, and even a parody of what could be a new HBO series called Kill the Bunnies. (Warning: There is much profanity in the video.)
[/quote]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98OBwNQxeSY
And the latest update:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/15/mount-st-marys-reinstates-professors-it-fired
You may find this part surprising…
That parody is hilarious!
Wrt students It’d be interesting to know how those who voted were selected, and why
That parody video is brilliant!
Simon Newman may go down as the single worst higher-ed hire in a generation. And that’s saying something!
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/15/mount-st-marys-reinstates-professors-it-fired
This is a fascinating story. It seems like Newman is the most tone-deaf college president ever. Things like improving retention rate, offering better student services, etc. are all laudable goals. Even not stringing along failing students to collect another semester or two of tuition makes some kind of sense (if they truly can’t be coached to succeed). But it seems like he has no clue how to do achieve those goals. Getting rid of students a few weeks after they arrive based on a questionnaire is crazy, even if it does boost the retention numbers (doubtful). I can lower my blood pressure numbers by puncturing an artery, but my life expectancy wouldn’t go up.
Beyond his drowning and shooting bunnies analogy, comments like “Catholic doesn’t sell” (same for “liberal arts”) suggest a rare combination arrogance and cluelessness. Not sure how this guy survived in the business world. Of course, maybe he didn’t and ended up in higher ed.
Normally, I’d ask if Newman’s actions were consistent with the school’s mission statement. I lean toward “no,” but the mission statement itself is a mass of largely bland verbiage that runs more than 500 words: http://msmary.edu/about-the-Mount/Mission.html
If your mission statement isn’t brief and crystal-clear, it’s not going to be a useful guide. And, from what I can tell, neither side in this dispute is using the actual mission statement in their arguments.
Most mission statements are like this. Noble ideals that can mean anything.
“Catholic doesn’t sell” does surprise me a bit considering Catholic schools/universities with a few exceptions have long been synonymous with high quality education which also attracts many non-Catholics. Talk about living under a massive boulder…
We’ve had at least one president within the last 20 odd years and several presidential candidates including a current leading presidential candidate who all touted their “business/entrepreneurial acumen” while running for president…and yet they’ve all displayed vast amounts of arrogance and cluelessness to varying degrees.
And some of that touted “business/entrepreneurial acumen” isn’t as it seems. One presidential candidate practically ran her tech company into the ground and ended up being effectively forced out by the board for the company’s dismal performance, another obtained his “business/entrepreneurial acumen” solely through inheritance and his parents’ connections to wealthy powerful friends who subsidized many business ventures which didn’t pan out, and another candidate massively hyped himself as the best entrepreneur/businessman despite declaring bankruptcy and starting out with a huge inheritance from his family…
Would be interesting to see if Newman’s touted “business/entrepreneurial acumen” is as it seems or if it is more a fanciful facade as is the case with several past and recent presidential candidates.