This just released a couple of hours ago. While the reader can make up their own mind, my view is that it seems pretty weak, especially since his student researcher was also apparently terminated as I’m told her email address at Macquarie ceases to function.
Salby’s statement is here – Anthony
10 July 2013
Macquarie University does not normally comment on the circumstances under which employees leave the University. However, we feel in this instance it is necessary to do so in order to correct misinformation.
The decision to terminate Professor Murry Salby’s employment with Macquarie University had nothing to do with his views on climate change nor any other views. The University supports academic freedom of speech and freedom to pursue research interests.
Professor Salby’s employment was terminated firstly, because he did not fulfil his academic obligations, including the obligation to teach. After repeated directions to teach, this matter culminated in his refusal to undertake his teaching duties and he failed to arrive at a class he had been scheduled to take.
The University took this matter very seriously as the education and welfare of students is a primary concern. The second reason for his termination involved breaches of University policies in relation to travel and use of University resources.
The termination of his employment followed an extensive and detailed internal process, including two separate investigations undertaken by a committee chaired by a former Australian Industrial Relations Commissioner and including a union nominee.
Media Contact:
p: (02) 9850 1039 e: Joanna.wheatley@mq.edu.au
A copy of this release is available online at www.mq.edu.au/newsroom
===========================================================
The PDF I received from MS Wheatley is here: SalbyStatement_July2013
According to the PDF document properties, the statement appears to be authored by Golda Mitchell who can be seen here: http://marketing.mq.edu.au/media_and_communications/contact_the_media_and_communications_team/
Given the furor this has generated, it seems odd they’d leave this to the lowest person on the organizational ladder. -Anthony
I am most curious to see how other faculty react, as this will set the precedent for how such issues will be handled in the future.
Link to Statement regarding the termination of Professor Murry Salby
Macquarie deleted Murry Salby’s home page. (Normally professors pages are retained with the designation “Emeritus”) Salby’s Macquarie research is still online for now. Wayback captured Salby’s research interests at Macquarie but not his home page.
@ur momisugly tonyM re “He has a contract”
Should have. Salby detailed:
He did not teach, because that was not his original contract, and the part about travel and university resources is the part where the university failed to fulfill their own contractual obligations…
Ken Hall – is this something you know, or conjecture? It seems plausible, but it would require either another source of information, or further information from Murry Salby
Wow Marxist sure think they know how to spin, butt in this case they are not spinning fast enough to compensate for having dropped a fan, and now we can see things they are trying to keep hidden. They are totally incompetent in all matters including implementing CYA procedures.
Macquarie University’s “response” to the Salby affair brought two thoughts to mind. First, the University took the admittedly unusual step of responding at all because the University felt “…it is necessary to do so in order to correct misinformation.” Nowhere in its response do I see any “corrections to misinformation.” I see additional information and a possible alternate explanation for the University’s actions, but I see no “corrections to misinformation.” Second, I believe the University’s stated reason for responding is phony. If “correcting misinformation ” were the true reason for the response, the response would not be unusual. Surely there exist thousands of examples of “misinformation” to which the University simply remained silent. I believe the reason the University responded is because (a) it felt the pressure of the internet’s response to the affair, and (b) it may already have heard from some of the “powerful backers” alluded to in Lord Monckton’s statement: “This case is outrageous. I shall be finding out further details from Professor Salby and shall then arrange for powerful backers to assist him in fighting the university, which – if his side of the story is in all material respects true – has committed multiple criminal offenses. This needs to be a high-profile case.” All-in-all, I’m neither impressed by the University’s response nor convinced I was exposed to “misinformation.”
President Obama, ‘If I had a son he’d look just like Macquarie’.
My humble recommendation to Dr. Salby… put the evidence online. All of it. Every bit of documentation that exists between you and the university.
“let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”
We need to see the contract. At this point everything else will be he said / she said.
Is anyone aware of any legal impediments to either party releasing the original contract?
I got to admit, this could be the trial of the century for a CAGW run university. Too bad in Galileo’s time he did not have the internet and powerful backers to mount a proper challenge:
“This case is outrageous. I shall be finding out further details from Professor Salby and shall then arrange for powerful backers to assist him in fighting the university, which – if his side of the story is in all material respects true – has committed multiple criminal offenses. This needs to be a high-profile case.”
Reed Coray says:
“…the University took the admittedly unusual step of responding at all…”
I was thinking that, too. I don’t know about Australia, but in the USA the only thing in any kind of employment dispute response is usually a generic statement that the university is precluded by privacy regulations to responding to the allegations. In this case they make actual contentions. Curiouser and curiouser.
tonyM says:
July 10, 2013 at 8:50 am
“The strangest part is that Dr Salby allowed this to go on for five years. He has a contract and that is basically of the end of the story. One wonders why he has not commented on this and any legal advice sought.”
In academic departments, especially graduate departments, there are usually one or more wars among various factions. Salby arrived under the protection of a faction and that faction was overpowered. That is par for the course in academia. Think of the rivers of anger in “Ghostbusters 2.”
Higher administration became involved. The decisions were made there and the responsibility rests there. Ordinary faculty are never trusted by higher administration.
Russ R. says:
July 10, 2013 at 9:33 am
“My humble recommendation to Dr. Salby… put the evidence online. All of it. Every bit of documentation that exists between you and the university.”
That move is for the lawyers not for Salby.
The Macquarie travel policy is here.
I wonder what terms were violated.
One recalls how long it took for the University of Colorado to dismiss Ward Churchill. Churchill had committed “serious research misconduct,” including falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism. Yet, that dismissal process dragged on for years.
Failure to meet classes is one of the few things you can lose tenure and be fired for in a university, let alone for a contract employee. The other thing is that the committee included a union representative, and they are not exactly famed for not sticking to the letter of contracts.
Let the dust settle
tallbloke, du you have any indication that Salby was involved in any controversial research in 2008? His publications in 2011/12 seems to be rather uncontroversial stuff about the ozone layer, and he himself stated in his letter that it was lack of resources for other research that made him start his controversial study of the carbon cycle.
Any theory that the university acted in bad faith from the start because of some controversial ideas Salby held has to start by showing that Salby indeed held any such controversial views at the time. In addition, the reasonably response from a university would be to simply not hire someone they didn’t have faith in, not hire him just out of spite. That is far too conspiratorial for my taste.
Macquarie has quite specific formal procedures for dealing with unsatisfactory performance: see
http://staff.mq.edu.au/human_resources/ea/professional_staff_agreement/4_working_at_macquarie_university/416_unsatisfactory_performance/
http://staff.mq.edu.au/human_resources/ea/professional_staff_agreement/4_working_at_macquarie_university/417_misconduct_and_serious_misconduct/
There are multiple stages leading up to a termination on the grounds cited by the university. If these stages have been complied with, then there will be a substantial file that none of us have seen.
Anthony,
Be fair. The university has laid out credible reasons for the termination. It’s not enough to say it seems “weak” to you. On what basis? You have no idea of the what went on with the graduate student, so not fair to bring her in. Let’s at least wait to hear from the Professor.
We need to be better than the other side. We need to be fair minded and judicious. We have the science and data increasingly on our side. You’re only undermining your own credibility.
REPLY: I’m entitled to state my opinion, and my opinion at this point is that it seems weak. What remains to be seen is if the university constructed the situation by cancelling travel documents while Salby was away from the university. Dr. Salby in his original statement is the one who brought int he mention of the grad student, not I. had he not, there would be no reason to mention her. Note, I have not mentioned her name, only her existence and the fact that her email address at Macquarie seems to have been rescinded. – Anthony
“The University supports academic freedom of speech and freedom to pursue research interests.”
How is it actually pursued if the contracted research resources stay withheld/unavailable for years?
I see huge differences between the Macquarie’s and professor Salby’s versions.
Especially:
“Professor Salby’s employment was terminated firstly, because he did not fulfil his academic obligations, including the obligation to teach. After repeated directions to teach, this matter culminated in his refusal to undertake his teaching duties and he failed to arrive at a class he had been scheduled to take.”
versus:
“Following the obstruction of research communication, as well as my earlier efforts to obtain compliance with my contract, Macquarie modified my professional duties. My role was then reduced to that of a student teaching assistant: Marking student papers for other staff – junior staff. I objected, pursuant to my appointment and provisions of my contract.”
“In February 2013, Macquarie then accused me of “misconduct”, cancelling my salary. It blocked access to my office, computer resources, even to personal equipment I had transferred from the US. My Russian student was prohibited from speaking with me. She was isolated – left without competent supervision and the resources necessary to complete her PhD investigation,
research that Macquarie approved when it lured her from Russia.”
How this agrees with supporting “academic freedom of speech and freedom to pursue research interests”?
Frankly, with my experiences with the university establishment shenanigans the professor Salby version looks to me more plausible and given the content of his presentation lectures and the sweeping nature of his climate modelling critique then especially the part “The recent events come with curious timing, disrupting publication of our research on greenhouse gases.“ looks to me as plausible motive for all that.
What the warmistas have at stake are literally billions of dollars (flowing under condition they’re able to keep their “consensus science” up and the critiques out). That are amounts of money many usually don’t hesitate to kill for.
The nature of the academic career and reputation gives prof. Salby not much other choice than sue the Macquarie and I would think the skeptical community should put together lawyers funding if needed and in any case keep up the publicity about the developments.
Lots of interesting questions. I wonder if they followed their own procedures in conducting the misconduct hearing. I read here (http://staff.mq.edu.au/human_resources/ea/professional_staff_agreement/4_working_at_macquarie_university/417_misconduct_and_serious_misconduct/)
the following:
(emphasis added)
I wonder, did any of this happen?
Monckton’s suggestion that the University has committed “multiple criminal offenses” is absurd and very unhelpful to Salby. The University might well have violated terms of the staff employment agreement or Salby’s contract, but that’s entirely different.
At U.S. public universities, one must be convicted of mass murder or rape to be terminated. Everything else results in paid leave and therapy spanning years of evaluation and hearings. See Ward Churchill if there are any questions.
dirty lying verminous mendacious hypocrites, no surprise with CRL (criminal reactionary left) types
From my understanding of Australian labor laws, your visa needs to match your contract. If his visa did not include teaching, his teaching a course would have been against the law.
The bunny says:
“Failure to meet classes is one of the few things you can lose tenure and be fired for in a university…”
Fine. So long as that Policy is enforced across the board and applies to everyone, no problem.
But based on everything I’ve seen, I would suspect that this is a fabricated excuse to cover their butts. Plenty of staff miss classes on occasion — in every university. Further, at least in the U.S., just cause discipline requires an ascending series of warnings prior to termination.
Also, “.edu” unions in the U.S. are notoriously co-opted by school administrations. It is probably the same in Australia. What union worth it’s dues would cooperate in a disciplinary hearing where the subject was denied attendance by the actions of the school administration?