By Mike Adams
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Former UNC Dean Dan Plyler is like a lot of academics
today. He forms strong opinions without taking the time to study an issue to
determine whether his opinion is supported by evidence. Evidence is irrelevant
for such academics who are more interested in preserving visions of how things
should be - as opposed to evaluating how things are with some practical game
plan for improving upon them. Plyler's disdain for evidence was on full display
when he wrote a Letter to the Editor in response to my recent promotion to full
professor. It is reprinted below with my usual witty commentary (and humility)
interspersed between each paragraph.
The recent ruling by a federal judge that a faculty
member at UNCW be promoted to full professor establishes a dangerous precedent
that can have serious consequences for colleges and universities throughout the
country.
Actually, the ruling didn't establish any precedent at
all. After the jury ruled in my favor, both sides in the conflict (my attorneys
and the attorneys for UNCW) were asked to submit their recommendations for
relief. My attorneys asked for promotion and $60,000 back pay. UNCW attorneys
recommended promotion and $40,000 back pay. The judge split the difference on
the back pay and gave me $50,000. He did not have to split any difference on
the promotion because it was not in dispute. My promotion set no dangerous
precedent because it set no precedent at all. Ordering the things both sides
agree upon is a routine judicial practice. There is no seismic innovation here.
The real question here is why Dean Plyler decided to go
public with his views without familiarizing himself with the facts concerning
the promotion? The answer is simple: He wishes to preserve a vision that the
academy is under some sort of external assault by people with lesser judgment.
(Please note that even judges have lesser judgment than academics, in Plyler's
humble view). Since the evidence would have contradicted the vision, it was
ignored. In fact, it was not even sought after by the learned Dean.
Academia, since its inception, has held firmly to the
belief that accountability of its members is best determined by peer review and
peer evaluation. This process at UNCW and most other universities is a
multi-tiered one, with many steps designed to ensure that fairness prevails.
Also, any member of the faculty having received an adverse ruling has access to
a lengthy review process that can eventually lead to a hearing by the
University of North Carolina Board of Governors.
The lawsuit was filed in 2007 after UNCW refused to let
me appeal in 2006. The "lengthy review process" in my case was this:
"Dear Dr. Adams: We are sorry but you can't appeal this decision."
Does Dean Plyler equate denial of a single appeal with due process? Of course
he doesn’t. He simply knows nothing about the case over which he is offering
public commentary. To learn about the case would require learning about the
evidence. Seeing the evidence would diminish the vision. So the evidence is
deemed irrelevant. Welcome to Academic Elitism 101.
The purpose of these procedures is to ensure that the
quality of the faculty is maintained at the highest possible level – while at
the same time assuring fairness to all its members. There is no other
institution in our society that guarantees fairness and due process more than
colleges and universities, and to have a jury of the general population and a
federal judge – as wise as they may be – determine whether or not a faculty
member is eligible for promotion is ludicrous.
Any shred of credibility Dean Plyler had was destroyed as
soon as he said "There is no other institution in our society that
guarantees fairness and due process more than colleges and universities
..." When I read this line to my classes, they erupted in laughter. The
reason they laughed out loud was that they have to live under the iron hand of
the UNCW administration. They do not live in an ivory tower where they have a)
tenure, which prevents them from being fired, and b) qualified immunity, which
allows them to violate the law, feign ignorance, and let the taxpayers pick up
the bill.
When the laughter subsided, I took the time to survey all
of the students in my criminal procedure classes. (There are two classes with
thirty students in each class). I asked them two simple questions:
1: Have you (or one of your friends at UNCW) ever had to
go into a university expulsion or suspension hearing and face a university
attorney while being denied counsel of your own?
2. Have you (or one of your friends at UNCW) ever been
subjected to a student conduct "hearing" where the university made a
determination of guilt prior to the "hearing," which was typed up
before the "hearing" and handed it to the accused at the conclusion
of the "hearing."
Over 80% of the students responded by raising a hand
after I asked the first question. The same result was obtained after I read the
second question. I wasn't surprised by the results. I'm familiar with the
evidence.
Given the reality of things, it would probably be more
accurate for Dean Plyler to modify his statement to say "There is no other
institution in our society that disdains fairness and due process more than
colleges and universities." Of course, modifying his statement would
require that he examine the evidence. And that would threaten his vision.
It's another example of the "race to the
bottom" mentality that has permeated our society.
How obscene of Dean Plyler to use a phrase, which is in
vogue now in conjunction with the issue of globalization, but was popularized a
century ago by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. Justice Brandeis was a
champion of free speech and due process. Among other things, he taught us that
sunlight is often the most powerful of disinfectants.
In contrast, Dean Plyler is a hypocrite who demonstrates
that ignorance is the opiate of academic elites.
No comments:
Post a Comment