Archive for the 'Life and Culture' Category

Hands-On Professor Handed His Sentence: Drago’s on Probation

If only Drago had kept that finger to himself, his feminist credentials would still be intact.

Breaking news from The Chronicle of Higher Education for “Where Are They Now?”:

Scholar Known for His Studies of Women in the Work Force Is Convicted of Sexual Abuse

By Robin Wilson

Robert W. Drago—a prominent scholar of issues affecting women in the work force­, including academe—was convicted of misdemeanor sexual abuse of a minor last week in Superior Court of Washington, D.C.

We last read about Randy Robert back in September, 2011; his once live-in love the lithe Laurie Bonjo had blown a gasket when her daughter reported that Drago, then Director of the prestigious and proudly feminist Institute for Women’s Policy Research, had attempted to cop a feel or two. Or maybe three. Who knows? The seventeen-year-old did not lodge the complaint. Her mother did.

For the fleeting pleasure of feeling up a teenager, Drago’s been sentenced to eighteen months’probation. According to the Chronicle, he’s also been given the life sentence of being listed in the National Sex Offender Registry. I almost feel sorry for him.

Almost.

Where are the OTHER Kardashian Sisters?

Miss has too much time on her hands. What with semester break keeping things quiet on campus, news of meth-peddling faculty, embezzling college presidents, and grievance-filing students is pretty hard to come by. So, until the higher ed hijinks resume in February or so (one whole month before spring break: academic schedules are grueling), I thought I would struggle with the question on everyone’s mind this time of year.

Why don’t all of the Kardashian sisters appear in the family’s annual Christmas portrait?

It’s easy enough to explain Khokaine Kardashian’s absence. Rehab. But where is lingerie model Khamisole Kardashian? And used-car saleswoman Kabriolet Kardashian?

Khamisole. One Kardashian is enough.


Every family has its black sheep, unwelcome at reunions and other gatherings of the clan, so perhaps that explains why Linda Jenner gives twins Khlamydia and Koprolith Kardashian the wrong address for the photographer’s studio. Bird-brained Khormorant Kardashian doesn’t need faulty directions to lose her way. It comes naturally to her.

Linda thinks Khormorant's unique sense of style doesn't fit the Kardashian brand.


I did learn that Kaballine and Kaprine Kardashian prefer to kick up their holiday heels in the country, and retire to the family farm for the season. Understandably shy Karbuncle Kardashian usually joins them.

Sisterly togetherness at the Kardashian family farm.


And ever since Khosher Kardashian converted, she refuses to have anything to do with the Christmas card.

Khosher Kardashian sends her own holiday greetings.


So there you have it. My Christmas gift to you: more Kardashians. Just what you were hoping for, I know.

Professor Kinzey’s Dream Date: Irina “Grandma Meth” Kristy

Fate is funny. You just never know when or where you will find your soul mate. Or your cell mate.

Such is this case of the romance I imagine between University of California San Bernardino Professor Stephen “Skinz” Kinzey and adjunct faculty member at Boston and Suffolk universities Irina Kristy. Both academics, he’s into kinesiology; she’s a mathematician. He’s 40ish; she’s reached the three-quarters of a century mark. He’s West Coast; she’s East. But although separated by disciplines, generations, and oh-so-many miles, the two share an irrevocable bond: each has been arrested, accused of running an in-home meth lab. You can read about Skinz here and here.

Grandma Meth, says the Boston Globe,

will be arraigned later this month on the same drug charges her 29-year-old son recently faced for running a methamphetamine lab out of their Somerville home, according to the Middlesex District Attorney’s office.

Grandma’s mother-and-son business suffered, when, as the Globe story continues, the Somerville (Massachusetts) cops conducted

a daylong search of the second-floor residence at 19 Oxford St. that [son Gregory] Genkin and Kristy share, investigators from local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies recovered evidence that the site was being used to make methamphetamine, Somerville police said in a statement last month.

Grandma Meth prepares for class.


“A large amount of materials believed to be hazardous’’ were removed from the property by hazardous materials specialists, and other items believed to be dangerous were detonated by the State Police bomb squad, the statement said.

In the academic ghetto that is the greater Boston area, nothing rings in the holiday season like the sound of detonating explosives confiscated from a faculty member’s pied a terre.

Grandma didn't have too much time for housekeeping, what with running her own business and teaching on two different campuses:


I can hear the howls of protest all the way on the Vineyard. “But, but, but…” faculty are squawking, holding their noses in contempt as they point out, “Kristy is but an adjunct. She’s not really one of us.”

And indeed she is not. “Adjuncts” are one of the many dirty little secrets higher education likes to keep to itself. The difference between “adjunct” faculty members and “regular faculty members” is tens–hundreds in some instances–of thousands of dollars in compensation; health insurance; other benefits; and class size. While the salaries and benefits of regular faculty are many multiples higher than those of adjuncts, this discrepancy is offset by the fact that the the number of students in an adjunct’s class is significantly higher than the regular faculty member’s. Adjuncts, moreover, are typically assigned introductory and remedial courses; if they are very lucky, occasionally their department will throw them a bone of a survey course.

For English and math adjuncts in particular, this usually means that they are the gatekeepers of their respective disciplines: many a decision to major in one subject or another is based on the impression students glean from that introductory course they are obliged to take.

Adjuncts are typically not vetted in the same careful way that regular faculty are, so the chances of an adjunct’s running a meth lab on the side (they certainly need the extra income!) is probably greater than a regular faculty member’s, Skinz being the exception, one hopes.

But consider this. Suffolk University’s mouthpiece Greg Gatlin cuts the campus’s ties with Grandma Meth faster than you can say “Clery Report”:

“after the university learned of the charges,’’ she was “placed on administrative leave through the end of the semester,’’ school spokesman said Friday.

“Adjunct faculty are appointed semester by semester,’’ he said. “She has not been appointed for next semester.’’

What Gatlin neglects to add is that Grandma M has been teaching at Suffolk for over 26 years! That would be 52 semesters. BU had the good sense to muzzle its mouthpiece, thus avoiding the need to explain how the alleged criminal activity of a faculty member of 24 years’standing could have gone unnoticed for so long.

Adjuncts represent the best and worst of the academy–they do provide cheap labor that keep tuition costs down. Many of them are as qualified–if not more qualified–than the tenured faculty whose hard work in the classroom they are doing. On the other hand, they can expect no institutional loyalty–even after 25+ years (compare Gatlin’s statement to what UCSB said about Kinzey)–and any sense of appreciation or respect for their work they might feel somewhat entitled to gets ground out of their spirit early on in their “temporary” appointments on campus, for they exist in an unseen netherworld, welcome only in the classroom, never in a faculty meeting and usually not in the faculty club.

As for the institutions that perpetuate such appointments decade after decade, well, let’s just leave it at this: next time you hear faculty yapping self-righteously about the 99%, ask them about their adjunct colleagues–and if they’d be willing to share some of their goodies with this sad underclass. Don’t hold your breath.

DUI*: The Karen Pletz Edition of “Where Are They Now?”

*Dying Under Indictment

It isn’t often that a column by Nicolas Kristof gets me thinking; usually his mealy-mouthed half-truths just make me mad. His Thanksgiving column, “Are We Getting Nicer?”, prompted me to return to a question about Call Me Miss that I have been pondering ever since I learned of the death of disgraced ex-college president Karen Pletz.

Devoted readers will recall that Pletz was riding high on the crime wave that swept through higher education last spring, when one embezzlement scheme after another was uncovered on campuses as elite as Vassar and as meat-and-potatoes as Pletz’s Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences. Pletz was dismissed when investigators discovered a little matter of $1.4 million she’d apparently diverted for her personal use. In addition to theft on this grand scale, Pletz also stood accused of tax evasion, money laundering, dodgy hiring practices and assorted acts of workplace favoritism. All told, she racked up a 24-count indictment and was to go to trial in March, 2012.

Nevertheless, when news of her death in Fort Lauderdale reached Kansas City, lavish condolences were expressed by those who knew her, including

U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, former mayor of Kansas City, [who] said Pletz should be remembered as “first of all, a civic leader.”

I confess that my first reaction when I read Rep. Cleaver’s comment was to reflect on its dispiriting honesty.

But then it also made me think about whether, since the alleged embezzler has now met her maker, I should remove the original post I wrote about her indictment. The abrupt dismissal of a college president generally takes place when there is overwhelming, incontrovertible, compelling and public or soon-to-be-public evidence of wrong-doing on a grand scale. In other words, the smoke generated by a pink slip means there is fire. So, yes, although death cheated Ms. Pletz out of her day in court, in my view there was nothing “alleged” about the crimes for which she was to be tried. But the woman is dead, perhaps by her own hand. Should a snide blog post continue to persecute her, even after the feds and the state drop their charges?

To use Nicholas Kristof’s eloquent language, should Miss be “nice”? And if she is “nice,” and deletes the post, does that mean that other posts will go, once the academic miscreant has served his or her community service?

To me, these are real questions for which I honestly do not have answers. Do you?

Miss, trying to think--but nothing's happening.

Paul Krugman, Jimmy Hoffa, Barack Obama: Paragons of Cultural Decline?

Much ink has been spilled over the last few weeks about Junior (“Take Them Out”) Hoffa’s death threat to those of the Republican persuasion. That it comes as a surprise to anyone that a union goon should talk like a union goon is as baffling to as it is unsurprising that President Obama, with his eloquent silence, condones Hoffa’s lethal orders to the rank-and-file. We live in a time in which man’s political nature, red in tooth and claw, reveals just how debased our culture has become.

Paying their union dues.

But Jimmy told me to, and Barry said it was OK.


In the sub-basement of our decline resides the New York Times‘s Paul Krugman, who has chosen the tenth anniversary of September 11 to add his voice to the many who have spoken out in memory and reflection of that terrible day:

The Years of Shame
Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?
Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.
What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te [sic] atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.
A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?
The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.
I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.

Paul Krugman speaks out.


Where I come from, week-long NPR special reports on a single topic, week-long programming on myriad broadcast and cable channels, and 21 (i.e., every single one) of the Huffington Post’s “Featured Blog Posts” hardly add up to a “subdued” recognition of September 11. Perhaps, however, in the dark reaches of societal decay where Krugman hangs his hat, news of these commemorations has yet to penetrate.

When Mayor Giuliani raced to Ground Zero and gave New Yorkers a glimmer of hope that their city would not be torn asunder, I sincerely doubt he was thinking about cash. When George Bush assured the recovery workers that he—and the world—heard them he was not working the crowd at a political fundraiser.

Whatever poison has tainted the memory of September 11 leaks from the pustules bubbling up from the caldera Krugman calls home. Safely ensconced in his cesspool, Krugman spews his bile, insulting his readers by claiming they “know” he speaks the truth—then with the courage of one who hides in the cover in darkness takes his final shot: “I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.”

And this is where we live today. In a country that tolerates a president who thinks it’s OK to make death threats to US citizens. In a country that gives a platform to a writer who tells one lie after another then taunts readers for their lack of recourse.

Makes you proud to be an American, doesn’t it?

Entrance to Krugman's condo.

Home, sweet home

This is Getting Serious, Folks! Vassar’s Short $1.9 Million–More Academic Embezzlers Out on Bond!

Every year about this time, the competition within the academic world revs into high gear.  High school seniors are frantic to know if they made the cut at their first-choice institution. Admissions officers are holding their collective breath in the hopes that their offers of admission will yield the perfect class: students whose parents can pay the full freight of the whopping tuition bill; students whose high school GPAs and board scores will make the class look smart; students who have a special talent with an oboe, a tennis racket, or a paint brush; students who are not white.  The competition in the world of college admissions is gloves-off, bare-knuckled, and implacable.

This year is no different, except that in 2011 the competition is not about who gets in and who does not as much as it is who steals what and how much from the campus coffers.

First there was Middlebury Associate Professor Kateri Carmola’s penny-ante pilfering of historical society funds up in Vermont.  Not to be outdone, the heartland’s own Queen of Embezzlement Karen Pletz scored something in the neighborhood of $1.5 million from the Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences.  Now comes a mom-and-pop appropriations committee late of Vassar College, located in scenic Poughkeepsie, New York.

Fortunately, as a construction manager Fisher could borrow the equipment necessary to scoop up the cash he removed from Vassar's ample supplies.

According to the Journal News, Arthur Fisher and his wife Jennie have brought the embezzlement record back to an East Coast elite institution, where some might argue it belongs. The Fishers stand accused of ripping off Vassar to the tune of $1.9 million over five years.  Mr. Fisher, until December, was a “project construction manager” at the college.  His management skills netted himself and his little woman quite a haul:

four late-model BMWs and one Ford F150 truck, worth approximately $500,000 combined; three Rolex watches valued at $50,000; 10 unregistered handguns and one military style .223-caliber rifle; and various fraudulent law enforcement IDs and badges from a host of agencies, including the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the FBI and the New York Police Department, among others.  Police said the IDs contained Arthur Fisher’s name and photograph.

Found among the badges cops seized from the Fishers.

You’ll be relieved to learn, as I was, that police are fairly certain the fake badges and ID’s do not “appear to be stolen….They appear to be replicas.”

Perhaps you’ll also be comforted to learn, as I am not, that Vassar was all over locking the barn door that in their haste the Fishers left wide open when they absconded with their loot.  Says hapless college spokesman Jeff Kosmacher, “There have been steps taken at the college in terms of financial and project management oversight that will strengthen how we handle the business of the college in the future.” Kosmacher went on to insist that “the college maintained strong control systems before the alleged embezzlement.”

Artist's rendering of Vassar's strict financial controls.

I am not comforted because I feel so bad for Vassar.  It’s just announced a fundraising campaign with a goal of $400 million, $262 million of which is already in hand.  Will donors who give less than $1.9 million now wonder if the college will be able to keep track of their giving?  Imagine the donor contemplating a gift of $1.5 million.  Will she now feel compelled to make the donation directly to BMW and Rolex, rather than letting the funds pass through the college?  What a terrible state of affairs!

The Fishers' garage, before the Feds arrived.

But, this story has a punch line.  Guess where the Fishers live: Ossining.  How convenient.

The Fishers prepare to enjoy conjugal relations at their home on the Hudson.

Move Over Kateri, There’s a New Queen of Embezzlement in Town…

…and she makes you look like the small-time petty thief that you are.  All you faculty-wannabes out there who aspire to a career in higher education take note. If your career path includes embezzlement, you’d do well to consider the shining example of banker-turned-academic Karen Pletz.

From the March 31 Kansas City Star:

former president of Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences president Karen Pletz today was named in a 24-count indictment alleging she embezzled more than $1.5 million from the university, made false statements on her tax returns and engaged in money laundering. 

Not part of the indictment–nor illegal in any way–are the questionable employment opportunities that Pletz made available. Standing tall for women in the workplace, and acting as a one-woman affirmative action employer, Ex-President Pletz hired not only her daughter, who lives in Hoboken, New Jersey, but also the daughter-in-law of her trusted Vice President of Institutional Advancement Douglas Dalzell–you know who that is, don’t you?  The head fundraiser, of course.  The one who apparently directed a staff member at the University to keep the books of his son’s Kansas City restaurants.

Says former-president-soon-to-be-convicted felon Pletz, in the February 7 Star,

“I believe we operated with integrity, and I will stand by that always,” she said. “We don’t give jobs to people who aren’t qualified or aren’t committed or aren’t weighed against other people.”

And I’ll bet her daughter’s qualifications were held up to scrutiny in a nationwide search. The Star story continues:

“It’s a very family-oriented institution,” Karen Pletz said. “Osteopathic medicine has always been about family.”

That would be the Corleone Family.

President Peltz gave this stylish mouse pad as a Christmas gift to the trusted members of her "family."

Soon to follow: the continuing saga of Embezzlement Queen Karen.

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.

Next Page »


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 78 other followers

Latest entry in “Where Are They Now?”

Justice has been served to both partners in the mom-pop crime wave that embezzled a cool $2.5 million from bastion of transparency and accountability Vassar College.

Amy Bishop: Countdown to Court

A judge in Huntsville, Alabama set a trial date of March 19, 2012 for former biology professor Amy Bishop, whose colleagues in the biology department watched in terror as she gunned down three faculty members and severely wounded others in 2009. The motive, apparently, was Bishop's denial of tenure at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 78 other followers