Readers may recall this story: Mannian paint by numbers? Connect the UVa dots and The plot thickens at UVa – Kington resigns
UVa has just re-instated ousted president Sullivan.
The University of Virginia board voted unanimously Tuesday afternoon to reinstate ousted President Teresa Sullivan, a rare reversal on the heels of two weeks of protests from faculty, students and alumni.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303640804577490951286399204.html
Maybe they’ll soon do a reversal on releasing Mann’s emails to legal FOIA requests?
Everything I’ve read elsewhere is there is a conflict with the board, which wants reforms and the faculty, which doesn’t. The board wants more and faster reforms. The faculty is angry about the changes that have been made.
Good.
I think, but – what do I know about collegiate politics.
Should this episode encourage others to be open about perceived problems – a big plus.
Fingers – and other assorted appendages – crossed!
Auto
I understand this is actually a victory for the Mannians (and for the lawyers)
UVa will be a second class university by the end of this decade. Very sad!
“Maybe they’ll soon do a reversal on releasing Mann’s emails to legal FOIA requests?”
And maybe unicorns will fly? Hate to be such a cynic. They say optimists live longer.
The Chronicle of Higher Education is also on the story.
http://chronicle.com/article/U-of-Virginia-Board-Votes-to/132603/?cid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en
Both stories emphasize the fast (strategic business focus) versus slow (traditional, bloated high cost education) adaptation to a changing environment. Now, where AGW and “climate science” ann Mann’s endowed chair in the Environmental Science department fits is anyone’s guess.
The boosters of Sullivan and the haters of Republicans and the putative “out of touch” rich is particularly evident in comments at both accounts. Just who were the constituents of BOV members Kington and Dragas remains unclear to me – other, than perhaps, seeing a chance to seize the initiative.
An editorial in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal suggested that reinstating Sullivan would be a bow to the faculty, and not in the best interest of the University.
A reversal on releasing Mann’s emails to legal FOIA requests?
Yes. But could they first take Mike from us at Penn State?
Mr. Watts,
I assure you that the entire sorry incident had nothing to do with the issue of Michael Mann’s emails. The issues were almost entirely related to finance and worries about future changes in education and funding.
Submitted with admiration and great respect for your contributions and efforts.
REPLY: Thanks, the angle I was considering had to do with the hundreds ofthousands of dollars (some say up to a million now) spent on keeping Manns emails away from a valid FOIA request. Then there’s Kington’s involvement and the supposed offering of the Kington Chair to Mann. I agree none of this is the primary reason, but perhaps contributory. -Anthony
They should have fired the deans too. The world is too big to worry about things such as these sorts of people.
Good, – Now we all know they do not always know what they do.
We are talking about people who recently saw nothing wrong with considering gender when deciding upon the validity of data.
Looks like they could use a Schticky
From reports I’ve seen the bone of contention that lead to Sullivan’s dismissal was a dispute between her and several board members about expanding the University’s presence in the online education market which the board members felt, quite correctly in my view, would be of increasing importance in both the near and long term future. Sullivan was apparently adamant in resisting these suggestions, which was what supposedly lead to her termination. The story about her reinstatement discussed the protests by faculty and students, but didn’t mention any compromises that might have been negotiated between the parties prior to the reinstatement.
The accreditation agency for UVa, SACS, sent a letter yesterday indicating it viewed the Board of Visitors actions may have violated the standards of accreditation. Arne Duncan has recently increased the coercive power of the accreditors and reiterated they have veto power over participation in the federal student loan program.
Thus no one can afford to violate the whims and desires of the accreditation agencies. Anthony this very much relates to Mann and climate change and sustainable development but not how you think. Here’s a post from several weeks ago explaining that the accreditors serve as the international enforcers for using education to obtain the social, political, and economic transformations the UN agencies want. A la Rio+20.
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/is-accreditation-the-enforcer-for-unescos-vision-of-solidarity/
In the post I mention AdvancED. It is the holding company for most of the regional accreditors including SACS and also operates internationally. Its President recently tweeted from a school he was accrediting in Sicily.
I’m an alum and have been getting an every-other-day stream of emails on the goings-on from the interim prez, the dean of my school, and the prez of the alumni association. All expressed bewilderment at what was perceived as a precipitous, at best, and shady, at worst, action by the Board. All effused over the support for Sullivan from the admin, the student body, the faculty, etc. There was also an apparently connected resignation by the chair of the board of trustees of one grad school’s foundation.
Nowhere was there even a scintilla of a hint of a connection to Mann and the legal acrobatics over his papers. I would have thought that it would have occurred to someone that wasting $100Ks (and other resources) defending political liberalism at the expense of intellectual liberalism might have a connection.
I fear as Bill Yarber that UVA is on a path to being a 2nd-class institution.
What has become of the academic fraud allegations against her and “Walks with Lenin” (Elizabeth Warren)? They seem to make a good compliment to Mr. Mann and his fiscal philosophy.
Why does Watt get involved in this stuff. It had nothing to do with Mann.
Well, hooray Robin @ur momisugly 3:25. Lissen up, folks; there’s a quiz in the AM and I have no idea what’ll be asked.
===========
Here’s an interesting quote from an earlier AP version of the story picked up by NPR;
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=155786698
Funny how the media thinks emails “becoming public” and “surfacing” are so useful in some instances.
Of course, we can now anticipate a bunch of folks coming around complaining about “the chilling effect” that making emails public will have on the ability of college board members do their job.
“Maybe they’ll soon do a reversal on releasing Mann’s emails to legal FOIA requests?”
Yeah, like, umm….. when he is no longer bringing money in for them.
So Michael Mann will be getting his new chair after all.
If he does get the position, then that is all this was about.
If he doesn’t, well then it was about something else but I doubt it.
Michael Bastedo… called her reinstatement “unprecedented.” The board, he said, “has been humbled,” and its unanimous vote “puts Sullivan in a very powerful position.”
—
UVa President Teresa Sullivan was ousted by a consensus vote of the board. Then, just two weeks later, she is reinstated by a unanimous vote of the board. A consensus of highly educated people can sure reverse itself in a hurry! Aren’t these some of the same people who told us that a consensus in science is the end of all debate? I guess that rule only applies to science and not to any other areas in education. /sarc
Being psychic, I think I can answer this question from Bluesky:
Why does Watt get involved in this stuff. It had nothing to do with Mann.
I’m guessing that Anthony is just checking up on a “where there’s smoke there’s fire” connection. My thought is that climate science and the conflict of the board are unrelated, but both flow from the internal rot that seeks funding over advancement of knowledge. However, since we do have a focus on UVA while we seek the Mann documents, its interesting to watch other controversies play out that may or may not connect.
In particular, I’ve been watching the Instapundit reporting on the higher education bubble, and this particular controversy ties in with that. The bubble may pop when some university goes all in on online teaching and dominates all the others.
I would note that nearly all funding of US higher education is controlled by the federal government. A state run University would be nearly fully dependent on such funds. Threaten their accreditation and you have a fully compliant board on any number of curricular or spending needs. Here in Chicago it’s called punching bag politics. We’ll hold you up and punch you as long as we need to because there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.