4 ms·

That not being the case for tenured profs is part of their compensation package. The deals other people agreed to are irrelevant.

cma 6y ago
Tenure agreements don't protect for sleeping with students.
- clusterfish 6y ago
  Neither do they protect against witch hunts apparently, nor require so much as an accuser, let alone a non-kangaroo court process to terminate your career. Consensual sex is not a crime, and there are no circumstances in this case that would warrant maximum available punishment for the lowest possible violation of this policy according to the university's own range of possible punishments. This is a witch hunt that never cared about any facts, in all likelihood they just wanted to fire the guy for his political opinions.
  - cma 6y ago
    It doesn't require a crime to be fired. And even then: We don't know that he would have gotten the maximum penalty under the policy, as he didn't exhaust the appeal that his contract gave him a right to. He resigned and wasn't fired. People working at-will can be fired without any reason. 14 months PTO would be a godsend to them.
    - clusterfish 6y ago
      Again, people working at will are irrelevant, as his situation is different. You keep bringing it up for some reason, almost sounds like you're just jealous of tenure. He resigned because the process was consistently of a kangaroo court variety. He did get the "sentence" to be fired so there is no need to speculate what would have happened if he didn't resign. There was no point to continue to the one last step because there was no reason to believe that it would be any more fair than the numerous previous steps. You're just finding excuses for his unfair treatment because you don't like the guy or what he did. If a similarly unfair process was applied to a professor you like and respect, you'd be screaming in disbelief at how it's unfair. "Prominent civil rights activist loses tenure", instant 5000 points on HN. And so if you don't care about an unlikeable guy getting a fair process, then I guess you only care that people you don't like are punished by whatever means gets the job done, and that's not something to be proud of. Our society strives to be better than petty tribalism even if the legal protections against that aren't always there.
      - cma 6y ago
        The tenure agreement doesn't give a right to a trial with due process, just like at will employeement doesn't. You are saying he negotiated something more than at-will, so therefore he deserves something even beyond what he negotiated? And we should consider this a significant problem when the majority of workers who have nothing close to 14 months paid time off and a trial of some sort with an appeals process when they get fired?

cma 6y ago

Tenure agreements don't protect for sleeping with students.

clusterfish 6y ago
Neither do they protect against witch hunts apparently, nor require so much as an accuser, let alone a non-kangaroo court process to terminate your career. Consensual sex is not a crime, and there are no circumstances in this case that would warrant maximum available punishment for the lowest possible violation of this policy according to the university's own range of possible punishments. This is a witch hunt that never cared about any facts, in all likelihood they just wanted to fire the guy for his political opinions.
- cma 6y ago
  It doesn't require a crime to be fired. And even then: We don't know that he would have gotten the maximum penalty under the policy, as he didn't exhaust the appeal that his contract gave him a right to. He resigned and wasn't fired. People working at-will can be fired without any reason. 14 months PTO would be a godsend to them.
  - clusterfish 6y ago
    Again, people working at will are irrelevant, as his situation is different. You keep bringing it up for some reason, almost sounds like you're just jealous of tenure. He resigned because the process was consistently of a kangaroo court variety. He did get the "sentence" to be fired so there is no need to speculate what would have happened if he didn't resign. There was no point to continue to the one last step because there was no reason to believe that it would be any more fair than the numerous previous steps. You're just finding excuses for his unfair treatment because you don't like the guy or what he did. If a similarly unfair process was applied to a professor you like and respect, you'd be screaming in disbelief at how it's unfair. "Prominent civil rights activist loses tenure", instant 5000 points on HN. And so if you don't care about an unlikeable guy getting a fair process, then I guess you only care that people you don't like are punished by whatever means gets the job done, and that's not something to be proud of. Our society strives to be better than petty tribalism even if the legal protections against that aren't always there.
    - cma 6y ago
      The tenure agreement doesn't give a right to a trial with due process, just like at will employeement doesn't. You are saying he negotiated something more than at-will, so therefore he deserves something even beyond what he negotiated? And we should consider this a significant problem when the majority of workers who have nothing close to 14 months paid time off and a trial of some sort with an appeals process when they get fired?