Monthly Archives for March 2011

It Takes One to Know One: Professor Carmola’s Ethical Lapses

UPDATE:
Addison Criminal Division
==============
05/09/11 State vs. Carmola, Kateri
51-1-11 Ancr/Criminal
Nancy S. Corsones
Plea Conference

As I believe I have mentioned a time or two, one of the most endearing characteristics typical of college faculty members is their utter lack of a sense of irony. When you put that together with their finely honed sense of aggrieved entitlement, you wind up with a winning package such as Middlebury College’s very own Associate Professor of Political Science

Kateri Carmola.

Professor Carmola’s areas of scholarly interests include the ethical ramifications of warfare and Plato and the noble lie. So sought after is she for her expertise that she has “participated in numerous forums and events on the private security industry” and “provided expert testimony for the UN Working Group on Mercenaries.” Her publications range from addressing the “legal, ethical, and sociological issues surrounding the use of private military contractors worldwide….[to] the problems of assigning blame for the crimes at Abu Ghraib [and] the concept of proportionality in the laws of war.” If you were to find yourself ensnared in an ethical dilemma, clearly Professor C is the gal you’d turn to for the way out.

Were it not for that little matter, reported by the Burlington Free Press, of “a felony charge alleging she embezzled $4,800 from the Salisbury Historical Society.” At the time of the theft, Professor Carmola was a member of the Society’s board of trustees–its treasurer, in fact.

Professor Carmola has mentored countless students.

Professor Carmola has pleaded not guilty to the embezzlement charge and is currently free on her own recognizance, her trial pending. Says the Burlington paper, “If convicted, Carmola could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison and a $500 fine.” Rumor has it she’s burning the midnight oil boning up on the best way to assign blame for the affronts her dignity will suffer when she’s pulling laundry duty in the state pen. I also have heard that she’s been practicing a new pronunciation of the word “trustee.”

I was framed!

Bust-out scene from the docudrama, "Professor Carmola's Jailhouse Gang"

But perhaps her sentence will be mitigated if her jury considers the reason she suffered an ethical lapse. You see, she did it for the children. Her reason for emptying the coffers of a tiny, struggling non-profit? Besides, I mean, the obvious one that it is easier to steal from a volunteer organization of which you are a fiduciary than it is to seek funding through proper channels from your employer, who sits on an endowed nest egg of some $860 million. No, she stuck her hand in the cookie jar “to fund a series of class trips with college students in 2010”:

This will fund the snacks for our class trip!

According to a police affidavit, Carmola withdrew the $4,800 from the historical society’s bank account in 11 transactions between July 6 and Sept. 8 of last year. Carmola was on the society’s board of directors at the time but was not authorized to spend the group’s money without the board’s consent.

Society president Barry Whitney alerted police after he discovered that the funds were missing. According to the police affidavit, the society’s board confronted Carmola, who admitted she had taken the $4,800 out of the bank account and vowed to pay the money back.

“Carmola advised that she was taking money out of the savings account to fund her class trips with the Middlebury College students because she was a Middlebury College professor,” the affidavit said. The board subsequently voted to have Carmola removed from the board.

Middlebury, of course, is not acting as rashly. While it is true that Professor Carmola has copped to the crime, the chairman of her department thinks it would be “premature” to make a judgment. As does the Executive Vice President and Provost, who also evokes the p-word, saying:

The college would be very concerned if any of its employees were found to have engaged in unlawful behavior but it would be premature to comment on this legal case or to speculate about what, if anything, the college’s response will be.

In other words, Professor Carmola will be back teaching ethics at a liberal arts college located in Middlebury, Vermont. Ironic, isn’t it?

For an excellent on-the-ground account of Professor Carmola’s teensy mistake, read this post from the MiddBlog, Middlebury’s “alternative source” for news you can use.  Were it not for MiddBlog, I’d've missed the account in the Addison County Independent, which transcribes the conversation the professor-embezzler had with Vermont State Trooper Joseph Szarejko:

“I … spoke with Carmola and she advised that she did in fact take the money out of the historical society’s bank account because she did not have enough money to fund her expenses,” Szarejko wrote in his affidavit. “Carmola advised that she transferred the money out of the historical society’s account and into hers so that she could pay for her airfare and other expenses for the trips.”

Carmola told police she had returned the money and was “now aware that she made a mistake; she did not think anything was wrong with borrowing the money at first until she was confronted about this issue,” Szarejko wrote.

Here we have a faculty member who cannot afford airfare because “she did not have enough money,” so, like Willie Sutton, off she went to the bank, because that’s where the money is. So brazen is her sense of her entitlement, so highly degraded are her personal ethics that she told the state trooper, presumably with a straight face, that she “did not think anything was wrong with borrowing the money.” And, yeah, after she got caught she paid it back. I guess that makes her ethical after all.

In preparation for her plea deal, Professor Carmola uses ethics-for-dummies flash cards.

A Rogue’s Round-Up: College Presidents Plunge en masse into Hot Water

What a week it has been! So much graft, corruption, and financial chicanery taking place in the hushed halls of academic administration that I hardly know where to begin. One by one piggy presidents have overstayed their welcome at the trough of entitlements that make up their discretionary accounts.

Take, for example, President Allen Sessoms of the University of the District of Columbia, one of those large, diverse public universities Bill Gates finds so troubling. Never mind the UDC is the gateway to a better life for thousands of determined but likely under-prepared survivors of the District’s public schools—Bill Gates thinks it doesn’t do a good enough job. And insofar as the behavior of its CEO goes, on this point I would agree with Gates.

President Sessoms is a travelin’ man, and he likes to travel in style: a $1,443 flight to Boston, a $1,859 flight to California, a $2,229 flight San Antonio, and a $7,952 flight to Cairo. How much do you want to bet he does not donate his frequent flyer miles back to the University?

My university president flew to Cairo first-class and all I got was this commemorative tee-shirt.

And when he travels, he brings along his entourage; according to the Washington, DC Fox affiliate, “A car rental receipt lists an additional charge for a “child seat” for a conference in San Diego. UDC also shelled out thousands for the entire Sessoms family to fly to a conference in Jackson Hole, WY over the Fourth of July weekend.” Tacky, when you consider had the Mrs. stayed home to tend the Sessoms brood she could’ve tooled around the streets of DC in the university-provided Lincoln Navigator or just relaxed in the comfort of her $1.6 million home, also provided by the college.

Says President Sessoms of his high-flying habits: “the receipts used in the story were taken out of context.” Says the university spokesman, in a valiant attempt to explain where Sessoms’ travel funds went: “In instances where there is no receipt or request for reimbursement – or any other explanation – reimbursement was either not requested, or the documentation does not exist for reasons I cannot explain at this time.” This satisfying explanation pretty much speaks for itself.

President Sessoms house, car, and appropriate travel are quite rightly paid for by the university. His excesses are not, and they have occasioned a firestorm of adverse publicity that UDC can ill afford. Way to go, Al!

Sessoms isn’t the first university president to get tripped up by the seeming largesse of his travel budget. Take, for example, the president of Brookdale Community College in New Jersey. Peter F. Burnham was on “administrative leave” when he resigned this week. Meanwhile, Brookdale’s trustees are busily trying to figure out just how much of Burnham’s $680,000 office budget amounted to “significant expenses and reimbursements … [not] directly connected to Brookdale or are contrary to Brookdale’s adopted policies governing travel, mileage and expenses.”

What might those “significant expenses and reimbursements” be, you might well inquire. The Asbury Park Press has the answer: Burnham received

a country club membership, a $1,500 monthly housing allowance and a new vehicle “suitable to his office,” which most recently meant a 2010 Ford Expedition that the college purchased for $42,815.

Country Clubbin' President Burnham takes aim at his discretionary accounts.

Burnham’s contract also allows up to $40,000 annually in college tuition for his two children, for a total of $267,676 to private universities so far.

Not too shabby for the president of a two-year college with a mission to serve the students of Monmouth County. And I think we can all agree that a paid-up country club membership is a great example of “Integrity and Accountability,” the “value” Brookdale espouses on it website:

Brookdale Community College values fairness, openness, and honesty, engaging in continuous self-assessment to sustain excellence and demonstrate accountability.

About that “accountabilty“:

Burnham, a member of the Middle States Commission for Higher Education, attended a conference for the group in Puerto Rico in January. He flew business class at a cost of $1,524.60, but the commission would only pay the cost of coach — $1,229.60. Brookdale was billed for the $295 difference. He also submitted $242 bill for dinner for two at Morton’s Steakhouse….

A quick review of 2009 and 2010 country club expenditures show that the college paid about $25,000 each year for membership and monthly expenses at Navesink Country Club. Records show Burnham spent nearly $7,000 in 2009 and more than $15,000 in 2010 on golf, meals and entertainment for unnamed guests.

I am thinking that Sessoms and Burnham must share a travel agent.

And finally we come to this week’s guilty plea, from former Central Arkansas University President Lu Hardin, also the former–as of this week–president of Palm Beach Atlantic University–on federal charges of wire fraud and money laundering related to a scheme to deceive the school’s board of trustees into giving him nearly $200,000.

President Hardin practices his signature, and many others.

Arkansas Online continues:

Assistant U.S. Attorney Pat Harris said in court that Hardin’s criminal activity began in April 2008 when he forged a letter to the board of trustees suggesting it was legal for a $300,000 deferred compensation package to be paid to Hardin immediately. The letter purported to be signed by UCA officials, including its vice president and chief counsel, but it was actually written by Hardin without their knowledge.

In making his case to the judge, Hardin said he took “full responsibility” for his theft. He hasn’t been sentenced yet, but I for one hope for the best.

Slop talk: Sessoms, Burnham, and Hardin chew the fat while exchanging tips on falsifying receipts.

And, lest you think it’s only male academics who are corrupt, in this week’s bumper crop of miscreants, cast your eye on this excerpt from a March 9 press release from the US Attorney, Southern District of New York:

Marie E. Thornton, the former Vice President of Finance for Iona College, pled guilty today for embezzling more than $850,000 from the college. Thornton pled guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kevin N. Fox.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “This is a classic case of the fox guarding the hen house. Marie Thornton was entrusted with the financial well-being of Iona College, but instead, she abused her access to cook the books and line her own pockets.”

From 1999 up to May 2009, Thornton caused more than $850,000 belonging to Iona College to be diverted to her personal use by, among other things, submitting false vendor invoices for reimbursement to Iona College and submitting credit card bills for personal expenses to be paid by Iona College.

The sad coda to this story is that Ms. Thornton is in fact Sister Marie Thornton.

President Hardin and Sister Marie kick up their heels at the Felon's Ball.

Sickening, isn’t it? Especially when you consider that all of these fine examples of academic integrity, save Sister Marie, who presumably answers to a higher authority, were presidents of public universities and as such held the public trust, not to mention its money.

Do I think these sorry excuses for academics are the rule? No, of course not. But I do think that they are poster boys and girls for the slippery slope that college and universities administrators find themselves on when they begin to believe their own publicity. When they begin to believe that students are shareholders and therefore the college’s CEO needs to be “paid what he’s worth” just like the heads of Fortune 500 companies. Little by little, some–a few–presidents begin to think that what they are worth entitles them to those extra perks that after a while add up to 10-to-20 in the federal pen. Sometime between that extra martini at the 19th hole and the time the president lays his tired bones to rest on those 1000-count Egyptian cotton sheets it all goes to his head. My suggestion is that boards of trustees everywhere study these crooks when they draw up the next outlandish pay package to lure the candidate of their dreams to campus.

You Know Human Dignity Has Reached the Bottom of the Barrel When John Michael Bailey Apologizes

It had to happen, I suppose. Northwestern Professor John Michael Bailey has issued a heartfelt apology via a statement to the Daily Northwestern, the university’s newspaper. As I have come to expect from anything Professor Bailey says or writes, this latest missive is a model of its genre. All you graduate students out there planning a career in the academy might want to take notes.

Professor Bailey apologizes.


Bailey’s text is in italics. My interpretive text is not. Bailey begins:

I regret allowing the controversial after class demonstration on February 21st. I regret the effect that this has had on Northwestern University’s reputation, and I regret upsetting so many people in this particular manner. I apologize. As I have noted elsewhere, the demonstration was unplanned and occurred because I made a quick decision to allow it. I should not have done so. In the 18 years I have taught the course, nothing like the demonstration at issue has occurred, and I will allow nothing like it to happen again. In other words, he’s sorry he’s in trouble. Interesting that he trots out the most juvenile of excuses, “I made a quick decision,” i.e., “I didn’t think.” Well, Professor Bailey, you take home a paycheck because as a teacher-scholar you are paid to think. You are in your position because of your ability to make discerning judgments in your field, judgments informed by years of education and study, not “quick decision(s).”

To admit that I did not anticipate the degree of reaction my decision provoked does not even begin to convey my surprise. During a time of financial crisis, war, and global warming, this story has been a top news story for more than two days. That this is so reveals a stark difference of opinion between people like me, who see absolutely no harm in what happened, and those who believe that it was profoundly wrong. A typical diversionary tactic. Shame on all you prudes for pointing fingers of disapproval at lil ole Professor Bailey! Don’t you know the unemployment rate among polar bears is upwards of 15%? Don’t you know there are polar bears dying in war torn countries around the world?! In this paragraph Bailey also affirms that he’s not sorry at all for his “quick decision”: he plainly states that he sees “absolutely no harm in what happened.” If this is the case, Professor Bailey, then why are you apologizing?

Fluffy is embarassed that Professor Bailey is hiding behind polar bears.


I have already stated my case as clearly as I could (see): The demonstration was relevant to a topic relevant to my course, it occurred after class in a completely voluntary setting with ample information about what would occur. It involved an act that although unusual, had no harmful effect on anyone. Observers were Northwestern students legally capable of voting, enlisting in the military and consuming pornography, as well as making many other serious decisions that legal adults are allowed to make. Again, the Professor throws up a smokescreen of irrelevancy. The setting was “voluntary” only in so far as class was over. The room was the same. The students were the same. The subject matter was the same. But most important of all, Professor Bailey, your role as teacher, expert, guide, and authority was the same. You knew going into the class and after-class session that the subject matter of both relied–as does the subject matter in any class on any topic taught by any faculty member–on your, the professor’s, ability to convey that subject matter with the finely honed decision-making ability and critical capacities your years in academy have supposedly bestowed upon you. In this you failed. You failed those who were your teachers. You failed your students. You failed your discipline. Some might even say you failed the 25-year-old twit duped into appearing on stage.

Those who believe that there was, in fact, a serious problem have had considerable opportunity to explain why: in the numerous media stories on the controversy, or in their various correspondences with me. But they have failed to do so. Saying that the demonstration “crossed the line,” “went too far,” “was inappropriate,” or “was troubling” convey disapproval but do not illuminate reasoning. If I were grading the arguments I have seen against what occurred, most would earn an “F.” Offense and anger are not arguments. But I remain open to hearing and reading good arguments. Of course you’d flunk them. They disagree with you. I imagine that a number of your adversaries are of the naïve assumption that you understand their euphemisms. But since you obtusely maintain that you do not, let me spell out what you did wrong: 1) By your own admission, you made a bad decision in a “controversial” situation. That you knew the situation was “controversial,” means you also knew there would be consequences to your decision affecting not only you, but your institution. You knew that, and you acted anyway. At best, you were selfish. At worst, you were willfully and willingly ready to harm Northwestern’s reputation and waste the time of innumerable staff who are still cleaning up after you—and, no, Professor Bailey, wielding a personal pooper scooper just for your messes is not in their job descriptions. 2) Your act of “daring” just made society a little coarser, a little more vulgar, and a little more desensitized to the difference between what is public and what is private. And in that sense you, to use your own word, “harmed” us all. 3) Spare me your puling excuse that the live sex show was after class: it had your imprimatur. You really think that does not mean anything? Have you lived under a rock for the last 30 years? Are you totally unaware of the power dynamic between a teacher and his students? 4) You say that your class on human sexuality included kinky sex. How does it follow that a demonstration is necessary? I wonder what the after-class session on pedophilia will feature.

OK, I see where the limos park, but what about the school buses?

Although as I have noted, I regret allowing the demonstration, as an educator I do not think we should waste the opportunity the controversy has raised. There are real, important issues here, including optimal limits on academic freedom, the effect of sexual attitudes on education, and sexual rights and responsibilities, among others. A great university, such as Northwestern University, should be a place where people are not only free, but encouraged, to debate our most contentious issues. These include, apparently, the issues raised by the February 21st demonstration. Translation: Colleagues, help me out here! Ya gotta bail me out! Mommy! I want my mommy!!

I am working with undergraduate students to arrange an event that includes high-¬‐level discussion and debate about the February 21st demonstration and the issues it has raised. I invite President Schapiro to work with us to help ensure that this event is as intellectually valuable as it should be. Translation: Please don’t be mad at me President Schapiro.

Finally, I want to express my appreciation and admiration to the many students, colleagues, and parents who have written me in support. They, also, are part of the Northwestern community, along with some of those whom I have offended. God Bless America.

What a craven hypocrite.

Professor Bailey leads his graduate seminar.

Professor John Michael Bailey States His Position

For those of you who have been following the breaking news out of Chicago about the professor who mistook his classroom for a brothel, I commend to you his cri de coeur. Northwestern University Professor John Michael Bailey has issued a “statement” about the optional after-class activities he offers to students in his psychology class on human sexuality. In the self-aggrandizing style unique to the self-absorbed academic, the “statement” begins:

I teach a large (nearly 600 person) human sexuality class at Northwestern University. During the class I lecture about the science of sexuality. Many days after class I organize optional events. These events primarily comprise speakers addressing aspects of sexuality. This year, for example, we have had a panel of gay men speaking about their sex lives, a transsexual performer, two convicted sex offenders, an expert in female sexual health and sexual pleasure, a plastic surgeon, a swinging couple, and the February 21 panel by Ken Melvoin-Berg on “networking for kinky people.” These events are entirely optional, they are not covered on exams, and I arrange them at considerable investment of my time, for which I receive no compensation from Northwestern University.

Professor Bailey reads his statement. He is speaking into a microphone. I think.


Before parsing Professor Bailey’s statement, let’s review the description of his course, offered in Northwestern’s School of Continuing Studies:

PSYCH 337-CN
Human Sexuality
This course treats human sexuality as a subject for scientific inquiry. Major topics include the evolution of human mating psychology (including physical attraction, sexual arousal, evolved sexual strategies, and sexual jealousy), sexual minorities (e.g., homosexuality), sexual coercion, and AIDS. Carries science or social science credit.

Such courses are offered on many campuses; most of them do not include sex offenders as examples of “sexual diversity” equivalent to all women and gay men. At least I hope they don’t.

Back to the first paragraph of the “statement.” Its most revealing sentence is the final one. It tells you all you need to know about Professor Bailey: “I arrange [the after-class presentations] at considerable investment of my time, for which I receive no compensation from Northwestern University.” The good professor wants us all to know that his employer does not compensate him for his extra-curricular modules. If you didn’t know better, you’d think he received hourly wages instead of a salary. But you do know better, so you are instead wondering who does compensate him for arranging “these events,” since his locution strongly suggests somebody is.

Bailey next explains why he “recruited” the couple who performed a sex act in front of his students. It seems in prior years “speakers covering similar topics had not been very interesting.” Imagine. Instead of whipping out their genitalia, these speakers had the bad taste “to merely [give] PowerPoint presentations.” These pedants “were also unwilling to answer questions about their sex lives.” The nerve of them! Thinking that they were addressing students in a classroom instead of talking to clients on 1.900.SEX-TALK!

Oh no! Not the donkey again! B-O-R-I-N-G! Why can't we ever see anything interesting, like a PowerPoint presentation?

Professor Bailey concludes this section of his apologia by delivering his homily: “Sexuality diversity is surely a reasonable thing to address in a human sexuality class.” A little defensive are we, Professor? By the end of the “statement,” defensiveness has given way to the feeblest of excuses in the academic’s very large warehouse of tools for avoiding taking any kind of responsibility for lapses in judgment (or sanity): “Thoughtful discussion of controversial topics is a cornerstone of learning,” he says primly. Yeah. “Thoughtful discussion,” “controversial topic” and most of all “learning” are exactly what come to mind as we gather ‘round to watch a woman masturbated by a “finance” old enough to be her father.

Hey, look Ma! My Professor had something in his pocket and he was REALLY glad to see me!

Now that my working life is in its third act, I am trying diligently to develop distance and perspective on my former lives in the academy. How well I am succeeding I leave others to decide. Every now and then, though, I read a story that involves a cast of characters from my past and a stab of pity for a “there but for the grace of God” situation pierces my heart with such intensity, the shock of recognition is so electric that I find myself itching for a battle that I know has already been lost. As has the war.

I had such a moment this morning when I skimmed The Chronicle of Higher Education, which directed me to a story that must have all of Chicago atwitter. If you, like me, cannot get enough of the pervy-prof-caught-in-the-act tabloid fodder that academics seem to be specializing in of late, then you will want to take a look at the Tribune and the Sun-Times. Better yet, keep reading here because I’ll get straight to the juicy part:

More than 100 Northwestern University students watched as a naked 25-year-old woman was penetrated by a sex toy wielded by her fiancée during an after-class session of the school’s popular “Human Sexuality” class.

To all of you who ever wondered what is under all that academic regalia: aren't you sorry you asked?


It gets better:

Faith Kroll, the woman who stripped, was laying down on a towel when she was penetrated. When she arrived, she thought she just would be answering students’ questions and showing off sex toys they brought, including whips, paddles and a clown wig.

An “absurd, clinical” video and subsequent discussion about various aspects of female orgasm led Faith and her partner Jim Marcus, 45, to prove to the class that female orgasm is real.

Faith said she was not coerced in any way and students were repeatedly warned it was going to get graphic.

“One of the students asked what my specific fetish was and mine is being in front of people, having the attention and being used,” she said. “The students seemed really intrigued.”

Leaving aside any consideration of whether a 25-year-old woman can ever be in a non-coercive relationship with a guy some 20 years her senior, let alone one wielding a “device that looks like a machine-powered saw with a phallic object instead of a blade,” her explanation that this spur-of-the-moment peep show was unplanned and took place only to take advantage of a teachable moment is a little undercut by her going on to say “I’m an exhibitionist. I enjoy the attention, being seen by other people. It was entertaining because there were a lot of curious minds, so that was cool.”

Professor John Michael Bailey “said he hesitated briefly before allowing the public sex act. ‘My hesitation concerned the likelihood that many people would find this inappropriate,’ he wrote. ‘My decision to say “yes” reflected my inability to come up with a legitimate reason why students should not be able to watch such a demonstration.’”

And there you have, dear reader, as fine an example as you will ever encounter of the kind of exquisitely honed “critical thinking skills” the professorate claim is the single most important expertise they model for their students.

Rumor has it the new study carrels at Northwestern are something else!

Leave it to the administration to try as best it can to put a happy face on this sordid little episode:

“Northwestern University faculty members engage in teaching and research on a wide variety of topics, some of them controversial and at the leading edge of their respective disciplines,” said Alan K. Cubbage, vice president for University Relations. “The University supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge.”

My heart goes out to VP Cubbage. I wonder how much time he was given to rehearse his statement before making his announcement. Are the insides of his cheeks bitten to a bloody pulp from trying to choke back his laughter? Are there four angry red crescent moons on the inside of each of his palms from his clenching his fists in impotent rage at Professor Bailey? Probably not. The vice president was just doing his job, cleaning up after a faculty member.

If you stay in the academy long enough, you get so that nothing a faculty member does surprises or shocks you. And that’s when you know it’s time leave and give your moral compass a chance to refresh and recalibrate. Because the next professor to teach “human sexuality” will up the ante and push the envelope even further. After all, how else will he be able to get his name in the paper?

Call Me Miss weeps at the death of her canary Athena, who tweeted her last upon exposure to Professor Bailey's rationale.

Read about Professor Bailey’s justification for his pedagogy here.

LATE BREAKING UPDATE: Northwestern University President Morton Schapiro has posted a statement on the university’s website that is plainspoken and commonsensical in way unusual for most presidents. CMM is pulling for you, President Schapiro!

Bill Gates Lectures State Governors about Public Higher Ed: Pomposity 1, Education 0

Breaking news from The Chronicle of Higher Education:

Bill Gates, the billionaire software tycoon, who has taken an active interest in reforming public education since retiring in 2008 to focus on philanthropic work, said states should consider basing their support for public colleges and universities on performance measures—including graduation rates for students and income and employment rates for recent graduates.

And states should collect better statistics on those measures, he said.

A lack of data on graduation rates and how graduates fare in the labor market, he said, makes it difficult to tell which institutions are adequately preparing their students for life after graduation, and which aren’t.

“Is there any criteria under which state funding would favor those that have the higher graduation rates over the ones that don’t—particularly in times when our budgets are tight?” he said. “I’m not saying that’s an easy [decision], but if we can get good measures, at least the data will be there for people to be able to decide that.”

After Bill's lecture, all the governors received souvenir tee-shirts.

Back in days when I was teaching freshman English, I used to caution my students about checking out their sources in order to avoid referencing a “false authority.” I wish back then I’d had Gates’s know-it-all comments about public higher education to use as an example of what I was trying to explain to my students.

Most states collect detailed data about the enrollment, retention, attrition and graduation of their students, and have for years. Often–as any public community college, college, or university president will tell you–the picture is not a pretty one. Graduation may well take longer than the requisite two or four years. Not because the students are stupid or not interested in their studies, but because they are already working, Mr. Gates, to support themselves and in many instances their families while they struggle to fit classes into what is already a full schedule. Sometimes, though, students do drop out for good. That picture isn’t pretty, either.

These students leave because they can’t hack it. Their fault? Sometimes, but not always. Some students who don’t belong in college wind up there because there’s no place else to go–they have no skills, and, if they qualify, financial aid will at least put food on their tables if not give them food for thought. Or they wind up in college because their parents gave them an ultimatum: get out or go to college. Not a strong motivator that for a less-than-committed student. Or college is their ticket to the buffet of entitlements that sure beat working. One of my students in the distant past routinely cut class, offered up excuse after excuse for work left undone, and at the end of the term had the audacity to beg me not to flunk her because, and I quote, “if I flunk I will lose my Social Security benefits and have to get a job.” And, finally, of course, there are indeed students in college who do not belong there because they are not up to the intellectual challenge. But the social-engineering open admissions policies of many public institutions are such that these students are admitted nonetheless.

Ever think about any of that, Mr. Gates, before opening your yap to expound on a topic about which you know little if anything?

Try putting your glasses on, Bill, before checking the data.

Sure, everybody wants data and metrics and good hard information on which to base decisions, especially ones that involve spending taxpayers’ dollars. But unless the formulas account for the there-is-no-one-size-to-fit-all demands on public higher education, then the story the data tell is inadequate at best and pernicious at worst. Go back to rearranging your silicon chips, Bill. Do everybody a favor and keep clear of the college classroom.