4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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?