Mannian paint by numbers? Connect the UVa dots

polistra says:
June 11, 2012 at 1:12 pm
You are clearly 100% correct.
But this may have nothing to with climate science or M Mann.
The real questions are:
How can a major US university get into such financial trouble?
Who else is in such trouble?
If they had loads of cash they wouldn’t worry about anything.

From the story “an extraordinary talent who brings to the University an enormous depth and breadth of experience in every aspect of public higher education.” Holy smokes! Looks like the hirers spectacularly failed Due Diligence 101 – or this mighty babe is one smoooooth talker. Either way, she’ll be getting a spectacular pay day for her trouble. Unless… hooeee, the mind boggles and guffaws all the while it speculates.

Whatever, it is dark, dirty and unseemly behavior that begs for a real explanation.

That is my experience with any group having a lot of very intelligent people. When you get smart people together, the knives come out as they attempt to slip them into each others’ backs in order to advance their own career. At that level it is often easier to bring someone else down than to rise above them. Cream is already at the top, in order to expand your influence, one must create some curds that fall away to the bottom.

The plot seems credible. However, like with climate science, is this theme underdetermined? That is, is the seat for Dr Mann (along with the money spent resisting divulging emails) one of a number of possible explanations. To give further credence to the thesis it is necessary to show that there were no other factors that could be seriously damaging to the reputation to UVa. It may take time to confirm this, or we may never know.

Neo says:
June 11, 2012 at 1:49 pm
“… because she invited Katie Couric to be the 2012 Commencement Speaker .. ”
=============================================================
I was definitely being facetious! Colleges and universities have proved over many years that there is no one too shallow or ignorant to be a commencement speaker or receive an honorary degree, so long as they are “politically correct” in at least some coveted dimensions.

Some have pointed to the money issue for the firing. If you look at that aspect, ask yourself how much money the former UVa President spent fighting ATI over $8,500. Yes people the lawsuit between ATI and UVa was not over releasing the emails, it was over UVa trying to charge ATI $8,500 for them and the speed of release:

The legal action follows a delay by UVA of more than four months since ATI and Del. Marshall made their original request on Jan. 6. Since then UVA officials have demanded an unjustified and unsupportable sum of $8,500 from ATI to produce the documents, despite its admission that it knows precisely where the records exist on a specific University computer server. Still, ATI made a down payment of $2,000 for UVA to begin its search and delivery of Mann’s records – and also a second payment, for a total paid of $4,000.00 – but University officials still have not provided any documents, nor offered a schedule of its intentions to respond to ATI’s information request.

http://www.atinstitute.org/american-tradition-institute-v-university-of-virginia-dr-michael-mann/
Now this all happened right after Teresa Sullivan got to UVa. Now the question is did the President decide to play these games on her own authority or did she go in front of the Board first for permission. That I haven’t seen yet, but we do know that she was under pressure from the “Team” to deny ATI the emails:

The four scientists who wrote to Dr. Sullivan are: Rosanne D’Arrigo, senior research scientist at The Earth Institute at Columbia University; Dr. Benjamin Santer, climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Kevin Trenberth, climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and Raymond Bradley, director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/14/mann-fights-against-freedom-of-information/
The kicker is Dr. Sullivan wasn’t the one sued by ATI, the Board and the Rector was:

THE AMERICAN TRADITION INSTITUTE, and
THE HONORABLE DELEGATE ROBERT MARSHALL
Petitioners,
v.
RECTOR AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent.

http://www.atinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ATI_v_UVA_FOIA_First_Petition_final_5-15-11.pdf
Now the last thing we heard was that the judge was not so sympathetic to Mann and UVa but hadn’t ruled yet:

But at the end of four hours of argument, the judge did not grant ATI’s immediate request for 12,000 withheld e-mails written while Mann was a professor at U.Va., and did not rule that the school had waived its right to withhold the e-mails by providing them to Mann last fall. Instead, Sheridan acknowledged that however he rules, the case is headed to the Virginia Supreme Court to resolve several key FOIA issues the case raises

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/17/mann-vs-ati-caseunsettled/
Now here is the speculation:
As the Respondents the Board and Rector would find out before Dr. Sullivan if the Judge has reached a decision. Maybe the Judge has ruled against UVa and the Board is pissed at Dr. Sullivan for dragging them into court, wasting x amount money and ruining their reputation all because she tried to get $8,500 and dragged her feet on the original deal with ATI. Doing something like that will get you fired on the weekend, so if in the coming days the judges ruling comes down and goes public, you will know it was that ruling that got Sullivan canned.

On the surface it sounds like financial underperformance is the ‘official’ reason Sullivan was fired.

Remarks of Rector Helen Dragas
Meeting with Vice Presidents and Deans
June 10, 2012
“We had a philosophical difference about the vision of the future of the university,” she said. “We are living in a time of rapid accelerated change in both academia, as well as in healthcare, two areas in which we operate large enterprises.”

But that reason does not appear to be consistent with the startling suddenness of the process and decision on a weekend that terminated Sullivan’s employment at UVA.
So, I would think there probably is an immediate improper activity or threat by Sullivan that was a significant ‘unofficial’ reason for her being fired in such an unusually crude abrupt manner. I think there is something she did which, if it hit the media before UVA action to fire her, it would have done serious harm to UVA reputation. What it might be, I haven’t a clue.
Is her firing possibly related to Mann’s controversy wrt FOIA request litigation against UVA? I think the very pubic Mannian controversy might possibly be a component to Sullivan’s firing from UVA, but I do not think it could be a compelling component.
John