Readers may recall my earlier report on the strange weekend ouster of UVa president Teresa Sullivan last week where I suggested there might be a Michael Mann connection because supposedly he was offered the Kington chair, and the fellow whose name is on it allegedly called the emergency weekend stealth meeting leaving some board members behind. UVa has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting FOIA requests from the American Tradition Institute and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli for Mann’s emails related to his publication of MBH98 done while at UVa, and from what I hear, this issue has been very unpopular with some alumni and has resulted in some fund raising issues under Sullivan’s tenure.
Now, in the middle of this turmoil, word on the street is that Michael Mann will not get the Kington Chair. Meanwhile Larry Sabato, Director, U.Va. Center for Politics reveals (via his Twitter Feed ) the mood at the wee hours of the morning end of the UVa board meeting (at 2:39AM) after the weekend coup ousting president Sullivan.
From The Republic it seems the faculty is pretty upset too:
University of Virginia asks rector, vice rector to resign after president’s ouster
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — University of Virginia faculty leaders on Monday demanded the reinstatement of the school’s president and the resignation of two board members involved in her ouster. Officials gave no sign of complying, but acknowledged they could have handled Teresa Sullivan’s abrupt departure better.
“We recognize that, while genuinely well-intended to protect the dignity of all parties, our actions too readily lent themselves to perceptions of being opaque and not in keeping with the honored traditions of this university,” Rector Helan Dragas said in a statement issued by the university.
“For that reason, let me state clearly and unequivocally: You, our U.Va. family, deserved better from this board, and we have heard your concerns loud and clear.”
That wasn’t good enough for members of the Faculty Senate, who earlier met privately with board members to demand the removal of both Dragas and Vice Rector Mark J. Kington. The Senate’s executive committee also requested that faculty be given a voting position on the board, known as the Board of Visitors.
full story at The Republic
h/t to Ryan Maue
[UPDATE: I trust Anthony will not object to my adding that the “Kington chair” he refers to is actually the Joe D. and Helen J. Kington Professorship in Environmental Change. It is a newly endowed professorship, and it was established by their son, Mark Kington, in the memory of his parents. Mark is active in UVA matters, and presumable is the man Anthony refers to as working behind the scenes with the Board. -w.]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You all may want to read this.
I can only speculate, but I do note that often times, when academic people are hired, they may be required to disclose in their application materials among other things, any past incidences where they have been investigated for one thing or another. I could speculate that she Sullivan might have been asked when she was brought into the position, whether or not she had ever been investigated for academic misconduct. If she did not disclose this incident to the team that was evaluating her as a prospective hire, that failure to disclose may itself have been reason to let her go (regardless of whether any academic misconduct ever occurred or was established to have occurred). But that’s just speculation. Of course, the board might be even more concerned if they felt that she was stonewalling on the Mann issue, but that is a different matter.
Sorry, I forgot the link that goes with my speculations.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/16/Did-Breitbart-Investigation-Play-Any-Role-in-Sudden-Resignation-of-UVA-President
According to Leahy, “I sent Sullivan and Westbrook a ‘heads up’ email in which I told them the documents President Sullivan had sent me earlier in the week are not exculpatory. President Sullivan sent me these eight documents with the intent of showing they exonerated her, Elizabeth Warren, and Jay Westbrook from charges of scientific misconduct. But subsequent investigations revealed exactly the opposite. Far from exonerating Sullivan, Warren, and Westbrook, these documents (all of which will be shown in subsequent Breitbart News articles) cast doubt on the integrity of the academic work she conducted in collaboration with Elizabeth Warren and Jay Westbrook.”
Whereas, Sullivan had told him, “Scientific misconduct is not simply one more nasty thing you can say about somebody. It is a specific indictment, and must be handled through a regulated process of investigations and conclusion. We undertook that process and were exonerated.”
If Leahy is correct in his interpretation of the documents, it is possible that the exchange seriously damaged Sullivan’s credibility on the subject of scientific misconduct in the eyes of the board, hence why she is no longer with UVa. But that’s just my speculation. Someone should try to find copies of the supporting documents Sullivan sent Leahy.
E-mails from the rector and vice-rector have been released due to an FOI request, they don’t say much but are entirely consistent with the mainstream media reported story of financial planning issues being the reason for the firing.
Of course the fact that the FOI request was responded to in one day may be a topic for continuing this thread. 🙂
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_VIRGINIA_PRESIDENT_RESIGNS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-19-19-36-33
Apparently Mark Kington has resigned. Doesn’t say whether he “took his chair with him” or not…
UVa may not be “internationally reknowned” but it’s a pretty big deal in the US. Founded by Thomas Jefferson, one of our oldest Universities (first? of our State Universities?). It isn’t a “cow college”!
Pass the popcorn.
One must take everything Sabato says with a grain of salt. He is an avowed shill for the left, and will spin any story to fit their agenda. I have had to endure many years of his misguided prognostications and out right propaganda for the left’s causes.
Will UVA cooperate with this investigation? Or will it spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to block the investigation?
Max Phillis says:
June 19, 2012 at 11:03 pm
Far from exonerating Sullivan, Warren, and Westbrook, these documents (all of which will be shown in subsequent Breitbart News articles) cast doubt on the integrity of the academic work she conducted in collaboration with Elizabeth Warren and Jay Westbrook.”
Whereas, Sullivan had told him, “Scientific misconduct is not simply one more nasty thing you can say about somebody. It is a specific indictment, and must be handled through a regulated process of investigations and conclusion. We undertook that process and were exonerated.”
It’s the new, post-modern dictionary definition: “ex·on·er·ate: tr.v., to undergo investigation for scientific or academic misconduct”…
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/16/Did-Breitbart-Investigation-Play-Any-Role-in-Sudden-Resignation-of-UVA-President
It narrowly focuses on the question of making data available to Professor Shuchman in a way that fully accepts your argument that it would be unethical to provide the full data set to Professor Shuchman.
=================
It does appear to be an issue related to scientific misconduct. It is an interesting co-incidence that the issue revolves around the question of making the full data set available.
The question of making the full data set available is at the heart of the ongoing AGW controversy. That AGW rests on a foundation of cherry picked data to advance a specific point of view. That AGW researchers have knowingly withheld the full data set, and in the case of tree rings advanced a statistically flawed “calibration” process that creates bias (hockey sticks).
The problem is that the scientific community is very slow to act on these matters out of fear. Fear that if they scrutinize the work of one, they will have to scrutinize the work of all, including their own work. Those at the top that control the investigations, they have nothing to gain by allowing investigations to go forward, and much to lose. So they let sleeping dogs lie, no matter how bad they smell.
Here’s a good article by Megan McArdle detailing the significance of the Warren/Sullivan studies that seem to have come back into play recently: “Elizabeth Warren and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad, Utterly Misleading Bankruptcy Study”, at http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/elizabeth-warren-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-utterly-misleading-bankruptcy-study/18826/ .
The study results appear to have been massaged in order to drive health care reform.
My understanding is that this information is (finally) coming to public light as part of the Warren candidacy. Sullivan is just gravy.
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/2012/06/19/kington-wulf-resign-following-boards-refusal-to-reappoint-sullivan/
Again. This has nothing to do with scientific misconduct or Michael Mann. Sullivan was moving too slowly on things such as online education, and some big funders decided to throw their weight around. The story is amusing, and the situation has been badly handled on all sides, but it really doesn’t seem to have anything to do with Michael Mann or Breitbart or any of the other conspiracy theories being flung about.
ferd berple says:
June 20, 2012 at 7:50 am
The problem is that the scientific community is very slow to act on these matters out of fear. Fear that if they scrutinize the work of one, they will have to scrutinize the work of all, including their own work. Those at the top that control the investigations, they have nothing to gain by allowing investigations to go forward, and much to lose. So they let sleeping dogs lie, no matter how bad they smell.
And the problem stems from the fact that those on top are bureaucrats first and foremost — never underestimate the power of bureaucratic inertia…
Gail Combs says:
June 19, 2012 at 6:01 pm
As you said U Va is a major law school so the use of University funds (and therefore donor funds) to do a CYA on Mann while he is at Penn may not have sat well with someone(s) trained in the law.
Actually the opposite appears to be the case:
Over thirty professors from the University of Virginia Law School send a letter (pdf) to the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia “affirming the importance of academic freedom” and urging them to contest the Civil Investigative Demand (CID) “to the fullest extent possible.” The professors write that, “[t]he CID is an effective tool of intimidation because it appears not to require the Attorney General to make any factual showing of the need for its issuance.” The professors continue: “There appears to be a serious legal basis for challenging the constitutionality of the Attorney General’s CID.”
charles nelson says:
June 19, 2012 at 3:40 pm
There are several comments above which suggest that our interest in events at small, obscure, second rate universities is; ‘irrelevant’ nay ‘screamingly myopic’!
Could I just remind these commenters that the ‘s’cientific foundations of the Global Warming Fraud were laid at small, obscure, second rate probably because the likes of Mann and Jones would never have gotten away with it at more reputable Universities.
As far as I’m aware UMass is not regarded as a ‘small, obscure, second rate” university so I think your argument is flawed.
Now, I only scanned this article, but what’s with the hatred of ultra-violet rays? UVa is better than UVb, imo.
“Sullivan was moving too slowly on things such as online education, and some big funders decided to throw their weight around”
You likely know the situation better than I, but if I had to speculate, (or even if there was no real need for me to speculate but I just wanted to), I’d raise three points:
a.) This seems to be an abrupt, surprising, alarming sort of way to have handled a difference of opinion over the long-term institutional direction of a major university of national reputation;
b). The timing of this abrupt firing coincides very closely with the coming-to-a-head of an issue of national importance – indeed, the kind of import that can topple administrations – that involves questions of academic honesty and competence, and which conceivably could drastically affect the subject’s reputation world-wide – and it does seem significant that talk about this issue began to surface prior to any noted or acknowledged discussion concerning a lack of enthusiasm for on-line learning.
c). I have to believe that UVa’s Office of General Counsel has been involved in this from the start. When someone in Sullivan’s position is terminated for reasons such as philosophical mismatches, financial underperformance, and the like, there are set phrases that a public employer uses to convey psuedo-information to the public that minimizes the impact on the reputation of the terminated employee – not out of concern for the reputation of the terminated employee so much as out of concern that the terminated employee not be handed the grounds for a profitable lawsuit for defamation. However, in this instance, Sullivan’s professional reputation has been taking a beating since Day One (if only by dint of the extensive on-line gossip and speculation about the reasons for her firing), and UVa was incredibly slow in mitigating this damage even as they watched it occur. This tells me that none of the standard set of innocuous, meaningless announcement progressions fit this situation, and UVa was floundering for the correct posture. To me, this implies a reason for firing that lies outside of the “we’re just looking for a new direction” genre of termination.
But I’ll admit that I’m biased. I had some involvement in reviewing the BK study back when, and came to the conclusion that the three people involved were skilled liars who produced an intentionally misleading study for the purpose of supporting their leftist-socialist philosophies. Sadly, and to our huge national cost and damage, they pulled it off at the time. So I have no inhibitions about speculating.
wobble says:
June 20, 2012 at 6:04 am
Will UVA cooperate with this investigation? Or will it spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to block the investigation?
Virginia state law states “The rector and visitors of the University of Virginia shall be at all times subject to the control of the General Assembly.”
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings
I am unable to find UVa in the top 300 in an admittedly a fairly quick scan. Even UEA , of Phil Jones fame, is in at 262!
Just because a uni is “huge” and important in its State does not make it “prestigious.”
@David Jones says: June 21, 2012 at 12:39 am
Number 126: http://www.topuniversities.com/institution/university-virginia
What makes UVA “prestigious” is the fact that Thomas Jefferson basically built it.
“I am unable to find UVa in the top 300 in an admittedly a fairly quick scan. Even UEA , of Phil Jones fame, is in at 262!”
You didn’t look very hard:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/rankings.html – Law School tied for 7th
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/95/best-business-schools-11_land.html – Business School 9th
06/22/12 Today’s Wall Street Journal has a brief but interesting report on the situation:
“Ruckus at the Rotunda: Ouster of the University of Virginia President Sparks Turmoil on Campus and Debate About Financial Challenges for All Colleges ” by Valerie Bauerlein in The Wall Street Journal on June 22, 2012 at page A6
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304441404577480972353515802.html
This quote explains what it is all about:
“David Leblang, chairman of the politics department, was among several hundred people at a Wednesday afternoon silent vigil, held in 95-degree heat in front of the university’s iconic rotunda. Dr. Leblang said he fears that if the board could remove a president so readily, the next step could be to change the curriculum. ‘If the board is able to roll the faculty here, this will happen at public institution after public institution’.”
And this quote highlights the real problem:
“Even some defenders of Dr. Sullivan acknowledge that the university, like others, must build a more sustainable model, as tuition increases have saddled some students with debt, and some costly programs bring in little revenue and offer scant job preparation for students. Undergraduate tuition for state residents at Virginia for next year will be $9,622, nearly double the $4,841 of 10 years earlier.”
The students and their parents, who are the real victims in this mess are not going to be helped by caving into the tenured (and well-to-do) faculty. I have no idea if the Board will help the students, but I am mortally certain that if the faculty wins, tuitions will continue to soar and faculty will place their pet projects far above the student’s needs. This might be a situation that calls for the use of the legendary neutron bomb.