Borrowed assets: Did deans plagiarize or just repeat 'gobbledygook'?

This article completely misrepresents what plagiarism is. The reason copying a term paper is unacceptable is the expectation from the professor is that a student will turn in original work. In the context of an e-mail message permission from the author to re-use some of his or her words is enough. All copying is not the same.

Moronic.These communications were not turned in as credit for course or degree or individual grandizment. Not was it strickly speaking, pay per piece. Another person's words do not always have to be credited if used with permission.look for real honor violations if you must.Start with big time college sports.

First paragraph--Bob Bruner, not John. I think this is a non-story.

This is not news and so disappointing that Dave McNair would further compromise his journalistic integrity on this garbage.

@VoR, The reason I consider this well done is that Mr. McNair has pointed out the fact, that immediately following the shocking announcement to oust Sullivan, the Deans sprang into action to defend the BOV, and did so as if speaking in one voice. The article presents those who consider the manner in which they did this less than honorable, and those who don't, but, I consider the swift, near unanimous statements made by the Deans to be worthy of discussion and appreciate this journalist bringing it to my attention.

@Nancy

This may be true. But what it doesn't say and cannot convey is the tone in which the correspondence was sent. Of course the statements were "swift." The President of University had just been wrongly ousted without the consultation of any of the Deans. The Dean's faculty, administration, students and alums needed to hear from them. Did the emails really "defend" the BOV's actions? The one I received certainly did not express that tone. It said what the BOV apparently was looking for and that the school was ALREADY doing that and should continue to. Were the messages sent too soon? Maybe. But just as any US President may address the country quickly following an attack or major event before knowing 100% of the facts (by the way almost always "borrowing someone else's language"), so too did the Deans.

What this article is doing is bothering good people who are trying to get back to work improving the University by scratching at a wound that is beginning to heal. Nobody likes a scab picker.

Wow, what a questionable piece of journalism. Plagiarism is representing another's ideas as one's own. These memos to the Deans' various constituencies reflected the content of their joint meetings during a dynamic situation. Thus, any one Dean's intellectual ownership of the content of the memos is not in question. McNair's plagiarism concern is beyond triviality. I am surprised the Hook ran this piece. Professors adapt the language of other professors all the time for communications with students if they are speaking as a group (it would be silly to require 5 different versions of the same memo). Professors will often take turns writing these emails to save their colleagues' time. This is very different than ripping off a term paper and renaming it, and turning it in as if the ideas contained therein came from the student, or a professor publishing a paper when the idea was not actually his or hers.

@Nancy Drew, did you actually read the memo(s)? Any of them? I did. They do not mention anything related to unfailing support for the BOV. In fact they are decidedly neutral in that regard. They call for calm and reasoned thinking (at this time some were defacing public property, tempers were flaring, and people were in the dark). Never did these memos take sides that I could see. At most, they reflected the reality that Sullivan had been fired and the University would need to move on and to be reassured that new leadership would be found (which at the time was completely reasonable).

The Dean's were doing what they needed to, step into the leadership void created by the sudden ouster of the President. They did not ask for this situation. In fact Zeithaml withdrew from the interim presidency as soon as it became clear that the situation with Sullivan was not resolved. If he had been "blindly supporting" the BOV I doubt he would have been willing to take such a principled stand since this surely undermined the decision even further. If that is "group think" then I'd like to hear from you what you define as an act of individual courage.

JBatUVA has it right, i think, and while Nancy Drew is correct that the article indirectly raises the issue of why did the Deans so quickly address their subordinate faculty, the story really does seem to pick at a pretty fake scab (to steal JBat's apt metaphor). Regarding the idnrectly raised issue, it is probable that the Deans were directed by their own bosses, the Provost and the COO, to communicate to their faculty, and it is also presumable that the faculty of each school wanted to hear some perspective from their own Deans. Basically, these communiques were just the initial atempts to staunch the bleeding of the severed arteries following the BOV's hack job, much like the joint messsage from Syrine and Simon that stated the BOV's actions were "resolute" and :authoritative." After all, it took Simon a whole week after that to re-find his own backbone amongst that rushed stitchery and publicly suggest, for the first time, that he might ditch the place if the BOV didn't ultimately do the right thing. But what I want to know is, what additional money threats were made, and to whom, in order for the final solution to take form? We know about some of the big (and small) threats made by donors who were enraged by Dragas's tricking Sullivan into resigning (and why did Terry fall for that, rather than call the bluff?), but we don't know what threats were made that caused McDonnell to reapporint Dragas? For e.g., is Paul Tudor Jones a McDonnell campaign donor?

@NancyDrew
That may be good advice for the individual moral actor who is accountable to only her/himself, but it might not have been practicial for the Deans, who are just mid-level managers at a larger institution in this story, to have declined to send out a "remain calm" type of message down to the faculty they manage at the institution. We are talking about a workplace personnel matter here, after all, not a personal choice between good and evil, no matter how much many of the protest leaders tried to make it that romantic. Doesn't sound like the act of issuing a calm-down statement was even optional for Simon and Strine, who after Sullivan's ouster were installed as the lead overseers of the institution in advance of the BOV arm-twisting Zeithaml (and what did they have to do to convince him to take it, after his first 2 refusals?). Of course, once it became obvious that there was a real risk that the rest of the workforce, and therefore the entire institution, might not accpt the command from on-high and put the institution's viability at real risk, the BOV bosses came to their senses and realized that having authority and exercising it properly are two different things. And this is what worries me -- after all this, we have a kiss-and-make-up ending that is disquietingly UVAish (UVA just hates to highlight the negative) without any real structural reform of the BOV's unfettered power. There is no reason to not expect a similar attrocity to happen again, assuming the BOV continues to be comprised of people with the levels of hubris shown by Dragas et al.

It looks like a PR release though several channels with a central theme-original work in these situations are not only not necessary but problematic. Perhaps the first version had clearances from legal and PR so thae were safe to use and didn't need another approval. If this had come from different division heads at GE nobody would have cared or noticed- non story for sure

This is a riot!

Wow. I'm outraged that employees of the same organization would issue consistently worded press releases about the same issue. The public deserves better! We deserve to have the same idea conveyed to us in as many different iterations as possible! More words! Different words! Buy a thesaurus for crying out loud.

This is so silly. Hawes, I'm certain you're a great guy, but I won't be reading The Hook any longer. Best.

I understand what happened now from the Hook. The Deans plagiarized right after Sullivan was bullied for being overweight.

We should be examining all statements during the attempted coup issued by UVA authorities carefully. This is called "content analysis" and one looks for similarities and differences as well as other indicators. Timing and synchronization are also factors of interest.

This article is helpful to show the message management aspect of the crisis management. The author could have placed it perhaps much better in the context of message management and "message discipline" which are standard PR fare.

Reflect on the chronology: 8 June Sullivan confronted, 13-14 June BOV Retreat to be held. 14 June BOV would have the report of the National Research Council provided by Sullivan as a basis of discussion of strategy for UVA. The NRC report is not in line with the privatization mentality of the so-far identified coup plotters.

The author of the article was correct to check with a PR specialist in crisis management because Hill and Knowlton pr firm was hired to perform this task. The author should have gotten into what the specialist thought of the message management process. Plagiarism is not the issue here. The issue is message discipline in a crisis and what the content of the message is and its purpose.

Getting everyone "on message" was important to Dragas, etal. in order to comple the coup process and to clear the decks for the next stage.

Were these coordinated messages issued before or after Hill and Knowlton was hired? Did Hill and Knowlton have a role advising Dragas etal on this example of message management?

@democracy raises important additional considerations and questions which need answers. Perhaps a lawyer in our ranks could comment on the issue of conflict of interest. At the federal level there are laws to deal with this for workers in the federal government. What about Virginia state law as it would apply to faculty and to private business corporations?

Two faculty members voted against reinstatement, one abstained. Who were these people and how did each vote?

It is a fair question @democracy asks: who knew about all this and when? Who was involved, if anyone, on the faculty for example in aiding and abetting the coup plotters?

When handing in original work for a class, there is an agreed upon standard for the class that all work is to be your own. An email, while many times original and should certainly be the truth, has no requirement to be original. Elected officials, businessmen, non-profit directors and many others use letters, speeches and emails prepared for them by public relations staff or assistants. That is not plagiarism. That is agreeing that what other people wrote or prepared reflects your sentiments to the degree that you are willing to assign you name to it.

Is it a valid point? Well, yes. If you send out an email to your organization and sign your name at the bottom, you are stating that what you just sent out are your own thoughts.

So what? If a bunch of the deans use the same language then it looks intellectually lazy but that's about it. No, as has been mentioned already, why so quick to say (to use words used before, here I think?) "shut up and get back to work" is a good question, though.

@NancyDrew: good questions! I can only speculate, but the deans likely received the same "treatment" that Terry Sullivan did from Helen Dragas and Mark Kington - half truths, semantically shaded remarks, and other questionable methods for advancing their agenda. If there was any dissent at the beginning, it was private/behind the scenes; it's corporate SOP for management to show a unified face to the rest of the university community. I'm sure the H&K consultants saw to that. Also, even Terry needed some time to get over the shock and demand her right of review/challenge. I saw Jim Aylor at several rallies, and the deans (minus Carl Zeithaml, for understandable reasons) did send out that communication asking the BoV to reconsider, thus backing up the Faculty Senate. Would it have been better if such dissent was openly demonstrated at the beginning? Absolutely, and reasonable and principled dissent, in an ideal world, is protected by tenure in academia as it is typically not in corporate America. There are a good number of issues that merit exploring in this sorry situation.

These emails were sent before the PR firm, Hill and Knowlton had been hired.

@Clifford Kiracofe. Thanks, I now see that I did not read carefully enough. Sorry about that.

@democracy is onto something significant:

"And why did Curry School of Education dean Robert Pianta send an e-mail that was almost giddy over Sullivan's ouster, writing that "The discussion from the Board this morning made several references to unleashing the schools to be bold and aspirational, to accelerate change. My clear sense is that…we are moving in ways that align well with the larger direction and vision of the Board?"

BECAUSE HE WAS ONE OF THE DEANS WHO HAS SOLD OUT HIGHER EDUCATION FOR CORPORATE PERSONAL GAIN, SEE BELOW, HIS TEACHSTONE BUSINESS. HE HAS BEEN PUSHING RESPONSIBILITY-CENTERED MANAGEMENT BUDGET MODEL AND PERHAPS SULLIVAN WAS GOING TOO SLOW FOR HIS TASTE. CHECK OUT THE MOST RECENT FACULTY SENATE SUREVY OF FACULTY TO SEE WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON AT CURRY. THE SCIENCE QUA BUSINESS PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN OVER UNDER THE DEAN'S LEADERSHIP.

"Could it be that Pianta was motivated by the joint Curry-Darden education-business master's degree program that proposes to integrate the "business model" into public education? "
YES HE HAS ADOPTED THIS BUSINESS MENTALITY AND ALL THAT MATTERS TO HIM ARE MONEY MAKING SCHEMES THAT BRING IN UNDEGRADUATE TUITION DOLLARS. HE'S THE TYPE THAT THE BOV/DRAGAS LOVED.
http://www.darden.virginia.edu/web/Darden-Curry-PLE/News/Home/ 
 


"Could it be that Pianta is motivated by his own money-making side business to this"business model?"
YOU GOT IT. THIS DESERVES GREATER ATTENTION BY DAVE MCNAIR. PIANTA HAS USED PUBLIC RESEARCH MONEY TO FUND HIS OWN BUSINESS.
http://store.teachstone.org/

"Why did Pianta recently tell the BoV Educational Policy Committee meeting, "We’re poised for promise. We can really go much further in the next five years?"
BECAUSE HE IS A POSTER BOY FOR THE DRAGAS MODEL. HE WAS SIGNALING TO THE BOV THAT SULLIVAN WAS TOO SLOW.

"Why is Pianta – at Curry – putting "more emphasis on science, technology, engineering and mathematics" (STEM) when there is no STEM crisis or shortage? Indeed, The Post just reported yesterday that "There are too many laboratory scientists for too few jobs."
HE RIDES BUSINESS AND CONSERVATIVE PRIVATE RESEARCH AGENDAS.HE USES 'CRISES' TO FURTHER HIS AGRNDA AND DOES NOT LISTEN TO FACULTY UNLESS THEY ARE ON HIS SIDE, GROUPTHINK HAS TAKEN OVER PUBLIC EDUCATION AT CURRY.
See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-pushes-for-more...

"Why is conservative education nabob Rick Hess, at the very conservative free-market American Enterprise Institute, so enthusiastic about the "entrepreneurship" he sees getting promoted at the Darden-Curry partnership?
BECAUSE ITS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF HOW CORPORATE BUSINESS HAS TAKEN OVER AND CORRUPTED PUBLIC EDUCATION. HESS GOT BOOTED OUT OF CURRY AND HATES PUBLIC EDUCATION AND TEACHER EDUCATION. PIANTA SUPPORTS THIS TYPE OF TAKEOVER, HE WILL SELL OUT EDUCATION. THE ONLY REASON HE IS DEAN IS BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL GETTING NIH/MEDICAL RESEARCH DOLLARS AND WE ALL KNOW HOW THE MEDICAL RESEARCH HAS BEEN CORRUPTED BY BIG PHARMA, HE HOLDS A CHAIR SPONSORED BY BIG PHARMA.

"Why did so many deans and top UVA administrators initially use language like "trust" and "wisdom" and "wise decisions" and "bold action" to describe the Board's ouster of Sullivan? HER ENEMIES WERE PART OF THE MICROPOLITICS OF THE OUSTER, IT WAS NOT JUST ALL AN OUTSIDE JOB BY DRAGAS AND CO. CHECK OUT WOO TOO. SHE SEEMED TO BE ANOTHER WHO APPEARED TO BE AGAINST SULLIVAN. MANY FACULTY HOPE SULLIVAN CLEANS OUT THE UPPER MANAGEMENT.

Who, exactly, knew what, and when?

GREAT QUESTION AND IT DESERVES A LOT MORE INVESTIGATION. BULLYING IS A CORPORATE MANANGEMNT STYLE. LOOK AT THE FACULTY SENATE'S SURVEY RESULTS BY SCHOOL/COLLEGE. sOME OF THE DEANS HAVE BEEN USING THE NEW BUDGET MODEL AS A WAY OF CORPORATIZING PUBLIC EDUCATION AND THEY BENEFIT FROM IT PERSONALLY. SULLIVAN HAD THE INTEGRITY TO STAND UP TO THIS BUT i DON'T THINK SHE KNEW ABOUT THE BACK STABBING GOING ON. SHE SHOULD TAKE A GOOD HARD LOOK AT THE SURVEY RESULTS AND THE EMALS SENT OUT INITIALLY BY THE DEANS BEFORE THEY SAW HOW THE TIDE WAS TURNING BECUASE REGULAR FACULTY SUPORTED SULLIVAN OVER THE DRAGAS MODEL.
@democracy is on to someting. Follow it up.

@ Citizen Party, easy on the all caps. Your handle alone damages your credibility. Don' t make it any harder on yourself.

This is a helpful discussion. At FAV, we have been trying to understand the coup and the underlyhing, if not secret, motivations of some involved. The PR management issue ties into the issue @democracy raises very well.

The July 5 email release is most interesting. IMO, it shows President Sullivan doing her job and trying to keep the Rector and Vice Rector informed and educated. They, in turn, supposedly were keeping the BOV updated. The release shows that Sullivan informed Dragas about the National Research Council Report to Congress due for release 14 June. She informed Dragas that she would have copies for the BOV for their 13-14 June retreat. Sullivan was confronted 8 June.

The NRC report in my reading does not support the "business model" we have been discussing. The report calls for a vigorous federal and state involvement in funding higher education and the model appears to be federal-state-university-business. The coup plotters' model seems to be simply privatization of public universitieis and a business-university model.

The pro-coup forces led by Dragas etal. led us to believe the issue about President Sullivan was over a strategic vision for the University. But her strategic vision must be in line with the NRC report as she herself was one of the distinnguished panel of experts who compiled the report.

While the NRC report is STEM focused, President Sullivan is clear in her emails about upholding the humanities and A&S at least the way I read them. Also in the emails she points out that BOV specifically instructed her to not revisit the academic future visioning undertaken several times in the past with faculty and most recently as 2007 I think it is.

What @democracy points out about the "business model" people to me indicates that the pro-coup forces did not want Sullivan to implement the main lines of the NRC Report to Congress which contained best practices from universities across the country. To me, the timing of her removal just a few days before the BOV annual retreat of 13-14 June was intended to preclude BOV being informed about the NRC report and considering it as a basis for longer term strategic planning at UVA. That Sullivan was one of the expert panel members of the NRC report would have given her argument credibility. Thus briefed, BOV may well have been inclined to accept Sullivan's "academic model" and thus decline the coup plotters "business model."

In this context, the message management would have been done to cover the coup situation and to prepare the way for the "business model" under a new president.

NRC Report in pdf at:

http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/bhew/researchuniversities/index.htm

Keep looking at Curry, Pianta, and Teachstone. There's an article there that would please all the naysayers here, I think.

@ Clifford Kiracofe: you've summed it up quite well.

There is, of course, a very pointed political –– not to mention financial –– aspect to the Sullivan ouster...and to the Dragas (and Kington, and McDonnell) agenda.

So who set up the SCHEV agenda for that meeting? I recall reading something from the Post or another media outlet that October was about the time Dragas began this campaign.

Who is SCHEV? The council members seem very business friendly: http://www.schev.edu/council/CouncilBios.asp

Not a recent event, but interesting nonetheless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO-DLbvJ460&feature=g-vrec

@Citizen Party

Very interesting. Take a look at the National Research Council Report. This would in effect represent something along the lines of an "Academic Model" though it is STEM heavy.

The NCR report makes clear that the business community once had leading research labs like Bell Labs. But the business community shut these corporate labs for research and development down. Thus, we have only the core National (US government) research institutions in many cases and also military and other government. Lithium batteries were actually pioneered by CIA, for example. Massive tech comes out of the space and military programs which can then go into the civilian sector if declassified.

The NCR report does take into considertion business partnering with Universities on research with the caveat that business pays the going rate so to speak and does not exploit universities.

The NCR report does endorse greater IT within the university setting. I did not get the feeling it was pushing online the way the Business Model people would like.

What your reserach implies is that SCHEV is apparently promoting the Business model.

FAV has identified a number of the players promoting the Business Model at the national level. SCHEV appears to be tapping into those players like ACTA and Anne Neal.

FAV has documented so far as pro-Business Model: ACTA, Mercatus Center at George Mason, Texas Public Policy Foundation, Kauffman Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Hoover Institution. There are materials on the blog which is:
http//:academical-village.tumblr.com
Use the "Archive" hyperlink to the collection of documents.

This is more than just a weak article. This is irresponsible journalism which is harmful to the integrity of honorable people trying to lead well in a difficult situation. I am appalled and will no longer be reading The Hook.

@NancyDrew - if Dean Bruner gave permission for portions of his letter to be used then there is no plagarism, especially as Dean Bruner was referenced in Dean Aylor's letter. Also the writer of this article "assumes" that all the Dean's were on board with Sullivan's dismissal (as indicated in the first paragraph of this article). Where is his proof of this? Has this proof ever been cited? Students have something to gain from plagiarism in the form of a grade. These letters were not written for personal or professional gain- no grade was given, no money was made-so, if the original writer was fine with his words being used on internal communication this is a complete non-issue and an effort at sensational journalism. However, the most irresponsible aspect of this article is that one person, trying to create a sensational story, can call into question the integrity of multiple people based on insufficient evidence and half-truths. I am ending my relationship with The Hook as well after this.

@Merry3 maybe I'm missing something but I read all the Dean's emails and not one objected to the 3 member BOV coup to force Sullivan's resignation. In fact their emails convey exactly what this journalist has said in the first paragraph. Please point me to a passage of a Dean's email that says otherwise and I will be happy to rescind my comment. There is also no claim by the writer that this is plagiarism. He merely lets others weigh in on this issue both pro and con. I fail to see how this is irresponsible journalism, and if you have read the comments above, the cut and paste emails may indicate far more than unanimity of opinion and deserve further investigation.

first paragraph :

"In the wake of the abrupt June 10 resignation of University of Virginia President Teresa Sullivan, the deans of UVA– before eventually reversing themselves and calling for reinstatement– sent out a raft of statements urging calm, resolution, and damage control. But the messages contained something peculiar: identical words. For instance, a paragraph from Darden Dean Robert Bruner and Engineering School Dean James Aylor, explaining the controversial reasons why Sullivan was departing, appear to be nearly verbatim.

@Merry3 & Simply Stated & Nancy Drew

even" if Dean Bruner gave permission for portions of his letter to be used" he did not explicitly say, do not give me credit for my words, rather claim the ideas as your own. This is a storm in a tea cup. So the Deans were shown up. We all know better than to claim ideas, & words of others as our own. Simply Stated has stated it clearly, and has the right attitude "for every person" who leaves "there is one more person chuckling..."

What Nancy Drew points to however is not amusing, and is, what is truly troubling.

@merry3
"I am ending my relationship with The Hook as well after this."

Has there been a reversal of position?

Hawes, please take Simply Stated's advice and buy the movie rights
and a good night to all

There is a certain jargon used among PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRMS TO DISTRACT FROM ISSUE:

"movie rights"
"book rights"
"2 sides"
"support"
"claims"
"I don't recall"

Textbook words from public relation firms.

Please do not pay attention to the late comerS nor Nancy Drew. She is very suspect at best!

Dr. Kiracofe makes the most sense and has substantial backing, references...to the issue at hand: WHY WAS PRESIDENT SULLIVAN OUSTED? Who was behind penetrating UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA?

simple: acta ACTA acta ACTA ACTA...and a dash of politics or is it the other way around?

The Washington Post article which looks into Anne Neal/ACTA influence on Dragas and the SCHEV meeting 17 Octrober 2011 is significant:

...."Neal did not mention Dragas by name. But her perspective is not too far removed from that of the rector, who justified Sullivan’s ouster as a necessary intervention to rescue U-Va. from what she viewed as an increasingly dismal financial model. Dragas suggested that rising costs and dwindling state subsidies call for hard choices and, presumably, significant cuts, and she faulted Sullivan for moving too slowly to address that issue ...."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/college-inc/post/are-va-college-trus...

Farrell's role has not yet been fully analyzed. Dragas and Kington are on Farrell's board at Dominion Power. Farrell is a Business Model advocate it would appear.

That the Washington Post is giving a close look is interesting and hopefully they will continue to do so. Hill and Knowlton may have to work overtime.

Can we change the subject slightly? I just read the DP story on Sullivan's email yesterday to faculty and staff. The email itself seems oddly familiar -- much like Dragas' intitial rationale for firing Sullivan, and like her susbequent "10-point" expansion (without significant detail) of that rationale, Sullivan's message was long on vague generalizations and promises to listen and work in the future, but totally devoid of specifics or identification of any new accomplishments or initiatives taken since she was rehired 2 weeks ago. So, since June 8, we have basically been led by competing speechmakers in the BOV and President''s office, with no apparent work actually getting done to resolve any of the issues raised in those speeches. And yet, as revealed by the DP story, when one side (the Rector) speaks in such obviously worthless language, the faculty, as they should, shoot it full of holes, while when the utterances spew from the other side (the President) they are lauded as a positive "development" and evidence that the President is "back." This sort of Hooray-For-Our-Sideism doesn't reveal anything besides the fact that is still quite easy for people to get buffaloed (sorry, Steven Stiils) when hearing what they want to hear, even if it does them no real good. Let's take up as an example faculty salaries, the inadequacy of which (and Sullivan's failure to date to address constructively) was one of Dragas' purported reasons for The Ouster: Sullivan, in her post-reinstatement statements, has noted that the issue exists, but has not articulated any kind of plan for solving the problem. In fact, it is openly known that, up until The Ouster, she was not eager to talk with faculty about it. Some months ago, several dozen faculty members, frustrated at Sullivan's and her loyal underlings' reluctance to engage on this matter, wrote directly to the BOV to seek its input and involvement. It is rumored that when Sullivan found out about this, she angrily directed her minions in Madison Hall to quash any faculty revolt regarding salaries. The BOV, as we now know, at least declare themselves as taking the issue more seriously than did Sullivan, it seems. Yet, now, the faculty look to the subsequently martyred Sullivan as their champion on this issue, even though she has still not slipped any beef into the burger on it. Or maybe the ones speaking up aren't as affected by it as are others -- according to sites that pop up on Google, the two faculty members quoted in the DP story today are doing quite well for themselves (Sabato made $260,000 in 2010, while George Cohen pulled in $196,000). I wonder who will really pick up and carry the torch for the vast majority of faculty who make far, far less than these two way-above-average-salaried men? With her being "back," as Cohen put it, it is Sullivan's job to fix the problem, and serving up a new starchy plateful of refined rhetoric doesn't provide much in the way of nourishment. I think we've been buffaloed in cville, and too quickly leapt into the breach of faith for our Hooray For Our Side signs waived around on the Lawn back in June to ultimately really mean anything, in terms of solving real problems. It may feel psychologically better to pull the wool over our own eyes than to have Dragas try to blindfold us, but the result is the same, and it won't be The Ouster that causes other universities to successfully raid our faculty -- it will be Sullivan's poor record to date on fixing the compensation gap.

Good lines of inquiry, Citizen Party. A skilled and enterprising journalist might make their Wooward and Bernstein moment with it. Is there any information revealing what Sullivan's position on professor unionization is? Or regarding organization of graduate students?

Meanwhile, in news of McDonnell's appointments to other BOVs:

http://flathatnews.com/2012/06/05/bov-member-laura-flippin-found-guilty-...

http://www.vagazette.com/articles/2012/07/11/news/doc4ffcbef613ac3675007...

Hard to make Rector Dragas look good, but Governor Bob is trying.

Like any similar situation, not all black and white. I can see it from both @ nancydrew's and MTS's perspective. I did not support the mission President sullivan was hired to accomplish. This whole new budget model, accountability-based or responsisbility centered whatever it is called. It represents the corporitization of public universities. I would rather have a president who stands up to the Gov, the legislature and the BOV and says :RAISE CORPORATE AND WEALTH TAXES TO FUND PUBLIC EDUCATION. That being said, I supported Sullivan aganst the corporate BOV 100 %. If its a choice I choose her as she is a professional educator. It would have been horrible if they got their way and put in some corporate CEO type like the guy at Arizona State. The larger issue of the attack on public universities by corporate interests framed the protests at uva.

That being said, there were problems even under her leadershp. They persist. Problems like deans who were selected as leaders for all the wrong reasons, lack of equitable raise policy and practice, lack of transpARENCY BY ADMINISTRATORS, lack of support for living wage, the bullying problem by UVA supervisors. I am hoping that president Sullivan now understands what side her bread is buttered on and tha it was not just a few high paid faculty that stood up for her. we hope she uses this momemnt as a monent for reflection and evaluation. If that doesn't happen and the same attack occurs again, she may look back and not see so many in the streets behind her. Choice time. No more business as usual.

Despite what the President is forced to say as president, there still needs to be a full investigation of the events by the legisllature and there needs to be a cleaning of the internal house. I hope she evaluates the varied responses by the Deans right after the resignation announcement as well as Strine's role. She has to say things that are about reconciliation and moving on. I don't beleive for a second that its literal.

Institutions, all large intitutions, have such problems. What happens in them and to them depends on leadership. I am still hopefull that President Sullivan will reflect on what just happened and make the right choices going forward and be a force for positive institutional change. Some of the problems are realted to UVA and what has been called the "plantation" culture. I think president Sullivan is an advocate for non-STEM fields and will try to do the right thing and can make some changes in the culture bt it will take some time. I do fear the new budget model is unsustainable and antithetical to traditonal higher education.

Don't you want the Jone's basketball arena and the Jones' yoga studio to succeed and triumph over the student scholarships that "could have been" because the thought that was best for the University of Virginia?

NO!

@Citizen Party, it is true that the degree to which all institutions, large or small, have problems such as inadequate protection from the risk of sexual assault depends greatly upon leadership, especially when leadership is presented with an instance in which it has to make some kind of decision about what to do in that case. Judge Freeh's report on the Penn State disaster (which really makes our recent unpleasantness at UVa seem like small potatoes, in comparison) shows how repeated poor decisionmaking by a university president can not only lead to harm to the institution but also enable continued harm to vulnerable and defenseless individuals. Halfway through Freeh's report, it becomes evident that much of the disaster at Penn State might have been prevented if Penn State leadership were not so ignorant regarding their responsibilities under the federal Clery Act, and had Penn State actually devised and implemented a program for compliance with its legal requirements. I wonder what UVa's situation is with respect to the Clery Act, and to what extent President Sullivan is hopefully much more up to speed on her and UVa's Clery Act duties, and how well UVa has in the past and currently complies with its duties to gather information regarding all Clery crimes occurring on campus, report them to proper authorities, and notify the University community of any continued risks posed by either convicted or alleged (conviction is not a prerequisite to the duty to report, Freeh says)perpetrators of such crimes who are still within the community. Upon reading the Freeh report, if I were responsible for a university's Clery Act compliance, I'd want to get on top of this right away. No doubt the BOV will want to, in order to avoid committing the same failure of its oversight duties as did the Penn State Board of Trustees.

I'm going to give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is a failed attempt to satire the Honor Code, or something like that. If not, I really don't see how this got past the editor's desk.

Come to think of it, there is a disclaimer here ("* Language stronger than .... by Bigfoot") that looks awfully similar to the disclaimers in the comments section of other articles. Looks there is rampant plagiarism at the Hook! Don't they know that they are supposed to re-word this disclaimer each and every time, since readers expect everything here to be original? Can you believe that they have the audacity to actually copy that thing verbatim? Let's call ethics and honor code experts to get their opinions. I wonder if they will have the same "charitable" view as they did for the deans. And, gasp, the author uses Helvetica Neue for the font of the title, clearly copying other articles on this website. I expect original formatting and style sheets; can you believe that this was just copied without attribution?

Of course, I'm going a little overboard, but the point is applicable. The deans had a job to do, and, as university administrators, all that matters was that they got the job done effectively. When they submit scholarly work to academic journals, we expect that it is 100% original. Fine, go after them for any plagiary there--and I hope that you do. But when they send official notices of administrative goings-on, we have different expectations (only that it gets the job done--just like the font of this article, and the disclaimer below).

@alleyesonpennstate

You have no idea how prophetic your comparison to Penn State is!!!!!

UVA has its own coverups of sexual misconduct, even under Sullivan's watch! Stay tuned........

Dont kid yourself, non-smoker. The opportunities to purge UVa of such perps have already come in the last couple years, and TS hasnt taken them. In fact, the result has been promotions and a welcoming back after a brief forced "sabbatical.". If youre looking for a reformer, youll have to wait for someone else to come along.

Slow news day, I take it.

I can't even believe this is a story. What happened here isn't plagiarism, and somebody is just scraping the bottom of a barrel to create scandal where none would otherwise exist. Seriously, is there nothing more interesting going on in this area that the Hook could be covering? Apparently not. I can't wait until we finally move away from here in a few months.

I would have used the handle "Small Town, Small Minds" but I know that another hook poster regularly uses that title. But it's just so fitting.

Mistake, the next BoV meeting is scheduled for Sept. 13-14th 2012....not October. However the July 13 th meeting was cancelled,... that part is correct.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/why-u-vas-governin...

I still think this story is relevant--these deans copied from each other, went with the BOV decision without pause, then later flip flopped when public opinion pushed them to. Where is their credibility? Where is leadership at UVA? How can the dean who danced on Terry's grave now claim to be her ally? How can Terry lead effectively with this group under her and Dragas over her? I do feel for the deans--what chaos, and now who can they trust and turn to as they try to go back to business as usual, when all is a charade?

I hope Dave McNair beats the WAPO to the punch. He's good. And he already has a good bead on the management/bullying problem at UVA.

I still think the topic of this article may have been a little soft, but the discussion it has engendered has several excellent leads for other stories. I think following up with what Suzie McCarthy's FB group is doing as well as the "Reform the BOV" FB froup activities is worth a look and some support. The grave dancing deans and The Curry School story seems worthy of follow up.

It all stills seems like we are on the defensive when we should be n the offensive. I would love to see a national meeting of all the Presidents and Faculty Senate chairs of all the public universities held in the Rotunda. Purpose: a national movement to rollback the attack on public higher education, the strangulation of tax support, the stacking of governing boards with neoconservatives and neoliberals. It seems like the more networking and mutual support public universities gather up, the better off they will be. There needs to be a public relations campaign that illustrates to people who are not directly connected to the universities, why it is in their interests to support public universities.

@MTS,

I am wondering if the two levels are not related. Global competitiveness, capitalist culture, business model--->UVA culture, Deans, management, lack of transparency, faculty salary differentials. Does one provide the context for the others? Sometimes it seems like trying to compete fro ratings leads to unethical management practices.

There was an excellent example of this at Louisville University School of Education where they hired an academically successful dean, the President and provost set him loose to raise the school's reputation by whatever means necessary. He created a culture of competition, set people against one another, ruined the atmosphere. Long story Short, he's doing a stretch in fed pen for fraudulent use of federal grant money. The story that got missed was what he did to ruin the culture of that school of education on the way to raising of rankings. See: http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100108/NEWS01/1080376/Former-Un... The article states:

"The Felner investigation created a scandal at UofL, where officials initially credited Felner for turning around the College of Education and Human Development by improving teaching preparation and dramatically expanding its involvement in local public schools.As the investigation proceeded, however, faculty members spoke out against Felner's leadership, saying he was vindictive, manipulative and threatening and drove away talented people. Some of the faculty who had run-ins with Felner attended Friday's hearing, including Thomas Simmons, an education professor.

“I think it's sad,” Simmons said afterward. “The way he treated people at the college was just totally inappropriate.”

Hebert said UofL acknowledges mistakes were made, and noted the university has taken several steps to fix problems identified by the investigation, including a revamping of its grievance process, review of faculty governance procedures and creation of an Ombuds Office to address faculty concerns and complaints. “The university has owned up to its mistakes and we're ready to move on,” he said."

A cautionary tale for UVA?

Email from the Rector and President:
JOINT STATEMENT FROM THE RECTOR AND PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

This is an important moment in the history of our great University. Recent events have caused the respect that U.Va. generates to acquire a new level of energy, focusing widespread attention on our future. We are unequivocally united in the belief that the institution’s future is brighter than ever. Together, we commit to harness this renewed energy to advance the University’s leadership role in higher education.

Our University faces the same challenges -- many of them resource issues, both financial and human -- as our peer institutions. We are prepared to address them in ways that are consistent with the vision of our founder, the integrity of our Honor Code, and the aspirations of our community.

As first steps, we will work to strengthen the networks of communication and collaboration between each other, as well as among all of our stakeholder groups: students, faculty, and staff; members of the Board of Visitors; alumni, donors, and parents; and key external constituencies in the Commonwealth and beyond. We also commit to engaging the community in the creation of a plan of action that will sustain excellence for future generations.

As leaders of U.Va., sharing a common love for the institution and its mission in the world, we pledge to work together to ensure that our University remains a beacon for superb higher education, outstanding health care, and important research. We also call on those who share our love to join us in fulfilling Jefferson’s vision for the University to become the “bulwark of the human mind.”

We look forward to working with you on the critical and exciting endeavors that lie ahead.

Helen E. Dragas, Rector

Teresa A. Sullivan, President

July 16, 2012

"As first steps, we will work to strengthen the networks of communication and collaboration between each other, as well as among all of our stakeholder groups: students, faculty, and staff; members of the Board of Visitors; alumni, donors, and parents; and key external constituencies in the Commonwealth and beyond. We also commit to engaging the community in the creation of a plan of action that will sustain excellence for future generations."

First step of the first step:

Tell us why you need to release such a statement?
Tell us what really happened and why.
Tell us why Dragas should not resign like Kington did?
Tell us why the whole BOV should not not be reconstituted?
Tell us how this will not happen again?
Tell us how the public university will be protected from privatization?
Tell us what the plan is to go back to the Governor and the Legislature and demand full funding of the public university?

Quit hiding behind a false facade of forgive forget and memory loss? We don't trust the BOVs. That trust will take some time and evidence to establish.

Money trail sniffer, you have been slowly and surely trying to chip away at Sullivan's credibility and character, trying to become "one of the people" here but with a seeming goal of trying to change the positive public opinion of Sullivan. You're not fooling me.

Helen Dragas is a disgrace to UVA. Dragas has nothing left to offer the university except PR driven letters promoting a united front. Ick! If Dragas cared about the UVA she would quit immediately.

Dragas remains because of McDonnell. Where does McDonnell's political funding come from? Sheldon Adelson, Koch et al.

Nothing can change the fact that Dragas had Dr. Sullivan fired behind her back. Dragas must resign.

Is this a second joint statement by Dragas that is resolute and authoritative?

Also, it's a terrible letter.

It reads to me neither like Dragas's native language (as seen in the FOIA emails, not the parroted PR work) nor Sullivan's, nor even a joint work product. To the attuned reader the letter therefore doesn't come through as genuine, and thus the sentiment of shared commitment seems phony.

What an ongoing tragedy.

@ Money trail sniffer July 16th, 2012 | 10:28am

I hope this correct, and I so agree:
"Still, rather than launch a political movement, i'd rather ser uva spend its energy sloving its own internal problems, such as the faculty salary crisis that is putting us behind our amarivan peers, and a penn-state-like cultural bias against full public disclosure of things such as sex crimes and other acts if violence that might harm our reputation."

I hope that your not correct that she has joined the club, the Good Ole Boys and Drag ass.

I guess only time will tell, and I wa-wa-wa-wa-wonder: If other e-mails as to your above mentioned statement are available.

Something more is behind this, smell some rats that are more worried about criminal conduct being exposed, not just fundraising! She may not even know what she has stumbled upon, YET!

They do!

might i suggest the UVA-ANTI-DRAGAS fund? I would definitely contribute!

"DRAGAS MUST RESIGN!

Thank goodness for the intelligence displayed on these posts!

Business as usual is not part of my vernacular! I cannot believe the "joint" statement with signatories Dragas and Dr. Sullivan carry any weight. Dragas undermined UVA, a public institution, and if Dragas wants to implement a business model, this is a complete failure.

In business, Dragas would be fired by now. So, which is it, business model "STRATEGIC DOMINIONISM" or reasonable model that INCLUDES THE FACULTY(ISM).

I am really getting fed up with all this 'ism' vernacular that distracts from the fact that Dragas wanted Sullivan out. OUT because Governor McDonnell disagreed with a RESEARCH Institution's guidance by a Doctor (Sullivan) who studied/studies employment of all races; that is her life's research. Employment after education. Why educate if the education process is flawed. Why pay $40,000 if my kid can get this education online. Audacity is culpable and using the education system to further all but the United States. This is TREASON!

Dominion Resources: Dragas is also on the board:
"The company has 20.7 B in debt with debt to equity (D/E) ratio of 1.73 which is OK given its current industry classification. Dominion Resources Inc. has Current Ratio of 0.74 suggesting that it DOES NOT have enough short term capital to pay financial commitments when the payables are due." so everything Dragas is a part of is FAILING...FAILURE BEGETS FAILURE.

DRAGUS MUST RESIGN!"

What has been the dollar consequence to Dragas' behind the scenes ouster of President Sullivan?

What exactly are year-to-date pledges to UVA since Dragas ill-tempted ouster of UVA's president? Why is this not PUBLIC information? I believe it is huge and why is no one talking about it? After all, the Governor thought 6 percent from his budget was good enough. Wow, what a disservice to the public university, UVA! Particularly since Governor McDonnell is promoting his $500 plus surplus? Stupidity at its' best at the Governor's office.

Hello, is anyone listening? Endowments at UVA are down, way down, and Dragas is responsible. Look at the money....

MONEY MONEY MONEY! Look at the endowments and funding. Remove those involved with their ill-attempted ouster of President Sullivan, and you will find endowments and donor pledges are down over 50 percent. Thank you Governor McDonnell.

President Sullivan, I so wish you had not allowed your name on that statement. Say it ain't so. Please say it ain't so.

Good for UVa!! We've long had the technology available. Why should only the few lucky enough to be in one lecture hall get to experience a gifted professor? I think education is about to take giant steps forward. At this important time of change UVa needs more than ever leaders with integrity. We need technical wizards, innovative idea people, along with leaders we can trust to make careful decisions while not forgetting to put students first. If I were President Sullivan I would explore the possibility of bringing a person on board who is a Ph.D. graduate of UVa. She just might be the right person at the right time to be a part of this important team. http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/16/the-woman-who-stood-up-... If handled properly the use of technology could provide UVa with another source of great pride. I think this venture with Coursera is a positive move. Good job President Sullivan!

In The Washington Post today, reporter Daniel De Vise has offered up what is more an on-line “learning” fluff-piece-ad than an informative and insightful article on education change (and the politics of it) at UVa in particular, and public education in general.

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-takes-major-step-in-o...

DeVise described UVa’s very rapid engagement with on-line learning “a potentially transformative movement...on a global scale.” Other than cutting jobs and wages, and turning more undergraduate education over to “technology (videotaped lectures, on-line testing), he fails to clarify what makes this business-model shift so transformative.

DeVise writes that “A compelling body of research has shown that some online initiatives yield improved outcomes at reduced cost.” But he doesn’t cite a single piece of that “compelling research” that supports that claim. Nor does any one of the people he references in the article.

Indeed, what we DO know is that Helen Dragas was reading “various articles” and latching on to half-baked musings and policy goals promulgated by conservative writers like David Brooks (David Brooks? Please.) and John Chubb and Terry Moe, both of whom are ensconced at the Hoover Institution.

The Hoover Institution, a conservative "think" (if it can be called that) tank that promotes "free enterprise" and the privatization of public education. Both Chubb and Moe are members of Hoover's Koret Task Force on K-12 education, funded by the Koret Foundaton. The Koret Foundation pushes "market-based K-12 education reform" and subscribes to the mistaken and easily disproved notion that "America's broken educational system lies at the heart of our nation's troubles" and drastic "reform" is imperative for "economic competitiveness."

Chubb and Moe recently (2009) wrote a book titled Liberating Learning: Technology, Politics, and the Future of American Education. In that book Chubb and Moe push all the conservative "reform" buttons: competition, charter schools, vouchers, merit pay for teachers. Technology, they say, is what will "make our children better educated." The problem –– and it's a big one –– is that there's little or no research to back any of it up.

Here's their web site. Click on Virginia in the map to find out about "recent developments" in the Commonwealth regarding technology and privatization initiatives.

http://www.liberatinglearning.org/?page_id=20

Bob McDonnell claimed to be uninvolved in the sordid affiar at UVa. But he most likely was. As Chubb and Moe noted, McDonnell pushed very hard in the last legislative session for more charter schools and "virtual school opportunities." There really shouldn't be much if any question about this. Conservatives –– especially Republicans (but also business-oriented "fiscal conservatives like Helen Dragas) –– view education simply as a commodity to be bought and sold, and not as a core civic responsibility of government in a democratic republic. What they will now argue, is that they are fulfilling Thomas Jefferson’s “vision” by bringing UVa to the “masses.”

DeVise does not cite any “compelling research.” and none of the higher education academics he quotes does either. Instead, they keep referring to their foray into on-line learning as “an experiment.” It’s not really an “experiment” about learning though. It’s about applying business-model principles to instruction - and cutting costs - and using “technology” as the vehicle. And there will be consequences.

In a 2003 book (The Flickering Mind), Todd Oppenheimer reviewed the research on technology and learning and and concluded that technology was a "false promise."  Technology is no panacea to improving learning, and spending on it and often undermines funding that might have gone to reducing class sizes and improving facilities.  Classroom observations found that "more often than not" classroom use of computers encouraged "everybody in the room to go off task."  

More recently the New York Times reported recently on classroom use of technology in Arizona, where “The digital push aims to go far beyond gadgets to transform the very nature of the classroom.” As the Times reported, “schools are spending billions on technology, even as they cut budgets and lay off teachers, with little proof that this approach is improving basic learning.”

To counteract the research, and gain some “credibility” by hopping on the the Khan Academy bandwagon (do these advocates think Khan is credible because he’s a former hedge-fund analyst?), the term the “transformers” now use is “flipping the classroom.” Uh-huh.

So, let’s see. The “transformation” means that “Students earn no college credit and the universities make no money,” but they get to “to expand their global brand .” We are told to ignore believe that this a “great opportunity” and “future potential,” when it’s mostly about cutting faculty costs and increasing faculty “efficiency” (note Dragas‘ comment about “a resource-constrained environment”). Nearby Albemarle County did the same thing a few years ago, pushing a costly software application (SchoolNet) as an “instructional tool” and forcing its use. The results were not good (See: http://readthehook.com/100248/no-school-administrator-left-behind ). The county superintendent and school board are still withholding 268 SchoolNet-related e-mails.

I posted elsewhere that upon Sullivan’s reinstatement as president, she had four options:
 
1. She can “fight the power.” But “the power” of conservative big-money forces on the Board just increased and McDonnell’s minions now have very firm control. If she “fights the power” at UVa, she’s toast. 
 
2. She can continue focusing on incremental change. But incremental change is what got her in trouble with Dragas and the other corporate gun-slingers in the first place. Unless Dragas and Atkinson et al agree that an incremental approach –– turning up the heat slowly but surely –– is the best way to boil the frog, that’s unlikely. 
 
3. She can comply, and do precisely what the Board (i.e., Dragas, Atkinson, and of course, McDonnell) wants her to do, and get reappointed when her current contract is up. Then, UVa and the Commonwealth are the losers. And Sullivan will have surrendered her integrity. 
 
4. She can try for “reasonable” accommodation of Board demands, and if she feels the Board is unreasonable, she can quit. At this point, she can find another job elsewhere with no trouble. 

It appears that Sullivan has opted for Door #3, even if she tries to paint the picture differently...that’s it’s really all about enhanced “instruction.” Indeed her plan, as deVise notes, “would go further than most elite universities have dared in replacing human instructors with software.” UVa is offering up “$10,000 grants to professors” to get them to buy in (pun intended) to the “transformation.”

Parents, “who pay tens of thousands of dollars a year in tuition and student and professors and citizens have a right to be skeptical. If an offer, a deal, sounds far too good to be true –– and given the research, on-line learning certainly qualifies –– then it probably is.

Educational technology is a symbolic thing. To some in the university business model it means doing what we already do now, only more efficiently and cheaply. To others like Prof. Ed Ayers when he taught historical methods with technology, it means using technology to do things that we cannot do without it and that is content-driven and creative. This latter road is not efficient or cheap but it does lead to interesting learning outcomes like using simulations to show students how mathematical and scientific concepts work in a dynamic and visual manner.

Dragas and company are not interested in that, they are interested in economies of scale and that model is bankrupt. Broadcasting my lectures to people around the globe who are divorced from the learning context is akin to watching a PBS show and while it serves a purpose it is not education with a facilitator who is a trained professional. UVA students don't want that and they don't pay for that, and I believe they don't want their degrees cheapened by that. The online racket is a scheme that for profits and banks use to scam undergrads out of tuition money. The attrition rate for online courses is through the roof and everyone knows it. Combined with the student loan scam its a perfect storm to take from the poor and give to the rich.

I think there is another option to add to democracy's above mentioned possibilities. This technology announcement is a red herring. It seems like a limited experiment that Sullivan can say "look I did some of that business stuff you wanted me to do" while she knows its just a limited experiment that may go nowhere.

If Sullivan and Dragas didn't know about the deal, we are in much worse shape than we know-Who is running the place?

The relevance of the technology decision from my POV was that there was not much faculty input or discussion and it seems foisted upon students, parents, and faculty. This may piss off students and parents and faculty more than anyone knows. We may lose faculty if this is forced on them or there is a perception of top-down mandate. That's where we should keep our attention focused: Accountability for Dragas and the Board (resign), pressure on legislators to deny her confirmation, pressure on legislators to investigate and reform the way in which BOV are appointed and ensuring representation on the BOV by Faculty, students, staff, alums, voting representation to the tune of 51% of the BOV. Transparency in decision making at the University level and school/college and department level also needs to stay front and center.

Not sure what to make of Sullivan's "making nice" discourse of late. May be too soon to tell. Sure would like to hear from the Faculty Senate on some of these issues.

Not sure I believe we have been had quite yet. Still waiting to see what Sullivan and Faculty Senate do., I am hoping she has realized which side of her bread is buttered. Not really waiting, I think the community and citizenry itself has become a player in this now despite what the Sullivan does. There are groups who are working on legislators to reform the BOV, deny Dragas' confirmation, demand new appointment process for BOV so that there is more and wider participation by stakeholders. These groups need to put pressure on Sullivan to do the right thing (e.g., Living Wage, anti-bullying, cleaning out her administration, more transparency, faculty salaries) as well.

And this is the most important thing anyway, for if Sullivan was to resign tomorrow, they would probably put in some corporate type who is worse and what we will require is a standing commitment by the faculty, students, alums, parents, staff, community to be permanently engaged. The wrong that was done by Dragas and co. was not done against Sullivan but against all of us in the public.

The lesson for me from all this is really close to the last speech that the Joe Wilson character gives at the end of the Movie Fair Game which is about the whistle blower in the Valerie Plame case. Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQkyJD15B74

I am not waiting around to see if this was just a squabble between two elite factions. The University is a public institution, that means it belongs to us. Can't go back to normal, back to sleep. We should plan another rally to remind them what we want. See if the Faculty show up like the public did for them.

@MTS,
So what then must we do?

FS bitching and whining were pretty effective. You might be right, but I think we are in a moment where it matters what we all do, you, me, the public, the community, the students, the alums, the FS, Sullivan, the legislators, Dave Mcnair, etc...

Maybe Christopher Hayes in Twilight of the Elites is right and that'as the lesson that will be drawn from the UVA Dragas Debacle. http://www.powells.com/biblio/62-9780307720450-0

I would feel better if the FS continued to call for Dragas' resignation and reform of the BOV in a more public fashion. I would feel better if Sullivan came out with a plan to call for more state support of public education.

Being somewhat familiar with the research in the field of educational technology @democracy is right on target. The evaluation research is mixed at best. It is clear that these types of decisions align university administrators with business models in search of efficiency. There are other more productive ways of transforming education with technology that focus on how instructors can use technology in their instruction by using simulations and visual representations.

These online course models do nothing but amplify the old technology of broadcasting lectures to a wider audience. They essentially replicate what we do now just more efficiently. Nothing transformative. A great article laying this can be found at:

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5001235702

I really think Sullivan is just saying ok go experiment with 4 courses, let me get on with other things. The more important focus should be on:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/statewide-poll-confirms-that-uva-boa...

That's the real story that needs following up on.

What is being done to block Dragas' appointment? What is being done to get the legislature to investigate and reform the BOV appointment process? What is being done to improve transparency of BOV and UVA administrative processes? What about a simple honest accounting of what just happened? Making nice and pretending this never happened will not serve the interests of the University or the public.

@ UVA Invisible

Rumors are not always accurate. To answer to your questions, you need to have more information. For example, was Darden representing itself or the University? Was the event merely to gather information or to negotiate participation? I think knowing the nature of the visit would aid in your understanding.

From: TheCavalierDaily: FOIA email re: President of UVA

"Freedom of Information Act emails released July 13

By on July 13, 2012

The University released the following emails regarding the selection of its eighth president July 13 at the request of the Richmond Times-Dispatch. The emails include a message from Gordon Rainey, an alumni representative on the Search Committee and the director of the Capital Campaign, summarizing an interview with an individual who suggested “if we do not find Mr. or Mrs. Perfect…hire someone for the interim (4-6 years) to be a change agent with a view to picking someone after that to serve for 10-15 years.”

Batch of emails

University Records Officer Caroline Walters made the following notations regarding legal exemptions from the released documents:

“Please note that one document was removed as entirely exempt (this removal is specifically noted on the email to which that document was attached.) All other documents actually attached to this set of emails were reviewed and they have been provided to you, in several cases with personal identifying information minimally redacted. However, you will likely note that all of the emails have a footer suggesting that an “attachment” was present. I wanted to let you know that the “attachment” footer in most cases is an artifact of the conversion of these records to the electronic system we are using for review of these FOIA requests. Therefore please do not be surprised at the relatively small number of attachments you will actually see here.”

by the way, the link to the email is once again broken, coincidence? i think not

anonymous July 19th, 2012 | 9:44pm

I have nieces,nephews and a dear friend with with a girl age 16.. I contributed, some portion. We had to pay in one case out of state fees, another in state.

What amazes me is the total from the parents, me, my sister hit the exact same number! 170,00 over 4 years! She the first, got a job, nursing quickly.

The other is begging to go the student loan route.

I have no answers, only that I too would like to hear some thoughts.

Many, many here are very very intelligent, and have a grasp on the inner works, I read with awe!

I hope some of these fine people can also dwell into the student, and the families of such. Put prospective with their fantastic knowledge of fund raising, online experiments and relate to us on the points you made.

Plagiarizers are scum, foot notes, what ever happened to those: " marks, quoting sources?

These comments have been so thought provoking and I share in your quest for sifting through your comments. They are so valid!

Thank you for laying it out, thank you very much. Then I add one note, safety. On campus or online, I am not sure along with the student loans that any have a real chance.

I am dumbfounded.

Sullivan is for Sullivan! Wake up idealists. This is the new America. Crony Capitalism morphing into dictatorship by an elite for an elite. If only there was such a thing as Capitalism or Socialism, both would probably work in their ideal forms. Unfortunately, either way, we always end up with elite thugs running a corrupt system. Sullivan was bought because you made her relevant. Grisham has good meterial for a new novel! Not so novel....LOL

There is quite a track record and literature on how large pharm. and chemical companies have influenced and contaminated university research since the 1980s. One of the earliest case studies I read was where it occurred at UC Berkeley no less. If you check out the Dole-Bayh Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh–Dole_Act) you will see the beginning of the end for commercial free research from public universities. Most research activity that does not comport with this ideology does not get much support from deans like Pianta.

The Pianta story is worth following up on. It sure looks like a commercial agenda and love of the Darden School model of education, but that sad story of jumping on the Business model of school reform has a longer history than Pianta's reign. The previous dean was an economist and the funding for Bavaro Hall he mustered came from the student loan industry ill gotten booty. Dan Meyers who sits on the Curry Foundation Board made his money off the student loan industry and according to this article by the NYT, he was being looked at by then Atty Gen. of NY Andrew Cuomo:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/business/02jabba.html?pagewanted=all

Its kinda of sad and ironic that the Curry School,of Education building was funded by student loan debacle that has put so many middle class people into permanent debt. Student Loan Hall.

Privatization does not just happen by acts of the BOV, it is supported by certain administrators and Deans in the micro-politics of everyday life at the University and in the individual schools and departments. I would venture to guess that if you looked at salary distributions, many faculty that do research on democracy(Except Sabato), critique, public good, policy as if people mattered, anything not related to commercialization etc , are on the low end of the pay scale.

Once again check out the Dean Robert Felner Story from University of Louisville, a cautionary tale for Curry and UVA. He was brought in to raise the School of Education's rankings (read comparative economic advantage) and given carte blanche support by the University Administration. Like Sherman though the South, He ruined the culture of the school of education by injecting competition, cliques, favoritism, and bullying all in the name of rankings and commercialization. Felner got busted for fraud and misuse of federal grant funds but the story about the rankings and the culture of the school was down played in that larger scandal. University Administrators were quick to want to move on from the episode just as we are bring told to move on from the Dragas episode. Below is an excerpt from news coverage (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100108/NEWS01/1080376/Former-Un...)

"The Felner investigation created a scandal at UofL, where officials initially credited Felner for turning around the College of Education and Human Development by improving teaching preparation and dramatically expanding its involvement in local public schools.As the investigation proceeded, however, faculty members spoke out against Felner's leadership, saying he was vindictive, manipulative and threatening and drove away talented people. Some of the faculty who had run-ins with Felner attended Friday's hearing, including Thomas Simmons, an education professor.

“I think it's sad,” Simmons said afterward. “The way he treated people at the college was just totally inappropriate.”

Hebert said UofL acknowledges mistakes were made, and noted the university has taken several steps to fix problems identified by the investigation, including a revamping of its grievance process, review of faculty governance procedures and creation of an Ombuds Office to address faculty concerns and complaints. “The university has owned up to its mistakes and we're ready to move on,” he said."

The interesting thing is Felner was a candidate for the Curry Dean position when Pianta was chair of that search committee and before he decided to take the job himself. Curry still got commercialism. That story is being repeated again and again (see University of Oregon, University of Texas, University of Wisconsin

The Coursera decision had the same old top-down smell of commercialization first, faculty input last.