6 ms·

Most people, when passed over for promotion, don't write about it publicly. One has to wonder what sort of spirit possessed this author.

by muglug 10y ago

M_Grey 10y ago
...And if said spirit was apparent to the people voting, and if they factored that into their decision.
apathy 10y ago
That's not how tenure works. Up or out -- you get tenure or you hit the road. So this is actually fairly common in academia. Sort of a parting shot, if you will.
- joeclark77 10y ago
  Yes, but he's now trying to take his show on the road and get a job at another university. The reason this "parting shot" is risky is that it may get him pre-emptively ruled out by a lot of other hiring committees.
  - fencepost 10y ago
    But speaking out here about the reasons he was denied tenure may be the only chance he gets to present that to some schools that might otherwise say "Buffalo knew this guy and tossed him, they must know something." It may also prompt potential employers to look at the makeup of the department that rejected him - is it full of people who got their initial degrees when 32-bit architectures were theoretical novelties?
    - joeclark77 10y ago
      Good point. In this case I think he's confident that he'll get a job somewhere, and therefore he's willing to do this as a way of eliminating potential employers from contention based on whether they do or don't value the kinds of contributions he's making. It's a good strategy unless he's wrong about how desirable he is.
smitherfield 10y ago
Speaking cynically, the motivation of the essay (and in particular stuff like his thin-gruel attempt to wrap himself in the flag of social justice) seems to be recruiting an internet brigade to harass his colleagues into reversing their decision, or simply as retaliation.
- phdysfunction 10y ago
  I'd say it's perhaps the former, since he's a little dickhead whose tenure was denied based on his attitude, and in part for harassing his colleagues. The other part is his research output, which is not that great either: much of the work he had was done at Harvard, and his work at Buffalo isn't that great.
totalZero 10y ago
He's trying to get attention so he can get a job somewhere else: https://blue.cse.buffalo.edu https://blue.cse.buffalo.edu
- blazespin 10y ago
  Yeah, I'm sure departments are just dying to hire someone who will bite them like this if they don't make him happy.
  - kitanata 10y ago
    I don't understand the mentality where if anyone dares shares their opinion about a former place of employment that has anything remotely negative about the place, that it is looked upon as poor form. It's ridiculous and takes away power from employees and those looking for work. We should openly talk about our experiences in places we work. Wouldn't it be an unfortunate thing, for someone to get hired into a place that has toxicity in it, when simply warning others may have prevented it? We should side with having empathy for our peers and colleagues, not for our employers and organizations. In general, this post is mostly positive. It's a reflection on his time there. Does it contain some criticisms? Yes, but to say that he should just shut up, take the beating, and move on is tragic. He'll have no problem finding employment.
    - MaulingMonkey 10y ago
      > I don't understand the mentality where if anyone dares shares their opinion about a former place of employment that has anything remotely negative about the place, that it is looked upon as poor form. Mmm - I think it's an extension of the "praise in public, criticize in private" mentality. Not everyone in all environments takes blunt critique of their work well, even if it's not intentionally aimed at them, especially if everyone can hear it. A little diplomacy can help a bitter pill go down much smoother. The article seems to contain some public, blunt, and very clearly coworker-targeted critique: >> And of course I’m angry with my colleagues. I trusted that they would be able to put aside historical personal grievances and act in the best interest of the department. I was wrong. I'd be this blunt with close colleagues and friends. With everyone else, I'd take a moment to consider the possibility that I might've had something to do with the personality conflict (to be fair, the author does seem to do this earlier) and reword more diplomatically. Because we should strive to have empathy for our peers and colleagues - even if we don't get along with them perfectly. To do otherwise risks contributing to toxicity. But as you say: > In general, this post is mostly positive. So here's hoping nobody sweats the small stuff.

Most people, when passed over for promotion, don't write about it publicly. One has to wonder what sort of spirit possessed this author.

by muglug 10y ago

Most people, when passed over for promotion, don't write about it publicly. One has to wonder what sort of spirit possessed this author.

M_Grey 10y ago

...And if said spirit was apparent to the people voting, and if they factored that into their decision.

apathy 10y ago

That's not how tenure works. Up or out -- you get tenure or you hit the road. So this is actually fairly common in academia. Sort of a parting shot, if you will.

joeclark77 10y ago
Yes, but he's now trying to take his show on the road and get a job at another university. The reason this "parting shot" is risky is that it may get him pre-emptively ruled out by a lot of other hiring committees.
- fencepost 10y ago
  But speaking out here about the reasons he was denied tenure may be the only chance he gets to present that to some schools that might otherwise say "Buffalo knew this guy and tossed him, they must know something." It may also prompt potential employers to look at the makeup of the department that rejected him - is it full of people who got their initial degrees when 32-bit architectures were theoretical novelties?
  - joeclark77 10y ago
    Good point. In this case I think he's confident that he'll get a job somewhere, and therefore he's willing to do this as a way of eliminating potential employers from contention based on whether they do or don't value the kinds of contributions he's making. It's a good strategy unless he's wrong about how desirable he is.

smitherfield 10y ago

Speaking cynically, the motivation of the essay (and in particular stuff like his thin-gruel attempt to wrap himself in the flag of social justice) seems to be recruiting an internet brigade to harass his colleagues into reversing their decision, or simply as retaliation.

phdysfunction 10y ago
I'd say it's perhaps the former, since he's a little dickhead whose tenure was denied based on his attitude, and in part for harassing his colleagues. The other part is his research output, which is not that great either: much of the work he had was done at Harvard, and his work at Buffalo isn't that great.

totalZero 10y ago

He's trying to get attention so he can get a job somewhere else: https://blue.cse.buffalo.edu https://blue.cse.buffalo.edu

blazespin 10y ago
Yeah, I'm sure departments are just dying to hire someone who will bite them like this if they don't make him happy.
- kitanata 10y ago
  I don't understand the mentality where if anyone dares shares their opinion about a former place of employment that has anything remotely negative about the place, that it is looked upon as poor form. It's ridiculous and takes away power from employees and those looking for work. We should openly talk about our experiences in places we work. Wouldn't it be an unfortunate thing, for someone to get hired into a place that has toxicity in it, when simply warning others may have prevented it? We should side with having empathy for our peers and colleagues, not for our employers and organizations. In general, this post is mostly positive. It's a reflection on his time there. Does it contain some criticisms? Yes, but to say that he should just shut up, take the beating, and move on is tragic. He'll have no problem finding employment.
  - MaulingMonkey 10y ago
    > I don't understand the mentality where if anyone dares shares their opinion about a former place of employment that has anything remotely negative about the place, that it is looked upon as poor form. Mmm - I think it's an extension of the "praise in public, criticize in private" mentality. Not everyone in all environments takes blunt critique of their work well, even if it's not intentionally aimed at them, especially if everyone can hear it. A little diplomacy can help a bitter pill go down much smoother. The article seems to contain some public, blunt, and very clearly coworker-targeted critique: >> And of course I’m angry with my colleagues. I trusted that they would be able to put aside historical personal grievances and act in the best interest of the department. I was wrong. I'd be this blunt with close colleagues and friends. With everyone else, I'd take a moment to consider the possibility that I might've had something to do with the personality conflict (to be fair, the author does seem to do this earlier) and reword more diplomatically. Because we should strive to have empathy for our peers and colleagues - even if we don't get along with them perfectly. To do otherwise risks contributing to toxicity. But as you say: > In general, this post is mostly positive. So here's hoping nobody sweats the small stuff.