* Has she tried to get a copy of Bishop's tenure dossier to see what it contained?
* Has she checked copies of the committee comments that led to tenure denial? Are those comments based on facts or objective opinions--or do they reveal signs of jealousy and backbiting?
* Has she, or any other reporter, sought to interview the provost and president about their reasons for denying tenure to Bishop, even though the president praised her in glowing terms less than two years ago?
* Has she looked into instances of employees possibly being treated in abusive and unlawful ways in the University of Alabama System?
* Has she looked into the background of those who served on Bishop's tenure committee? If one or two of them thought she was crazy, what are there backgrounds like? What are their credentials? Do they have DUI's on their records, perhaps affairs with students, research fraud, ugly divorces? What about leaders in the UA System? One member of the Board of Trustees has documented ties to a massive insurance fraud case in Pennsylvania. Have any reporters looked into that?
* How many taxpayer dollars were used to help train and support Amy Bishop's academic career? How did the University of Alabama manage this investment in a valuable human resource?
Bishop has some troubling incidents in her background, and it's important to look into that. But is anyone going to take a serious look at the university's handling of this case?
One of Kolata's "experts" says the Internet comments are a matter of some people "making excuses" for Bishop. How is it "making excuses" to ask questions about the bigger picture here? How is it "making excuses" to see this as a story, not just about one troubled individual, but about a university system that has grown dysfunctional.
After all, we have public statements from a former UAH student-body president saying the university's work environment is "deplorable." Has anyone interviewed him?
Some of the comments at nytimes.com provide more insight on the UAH story than we get from the newspaper's reporting. A reader named Joel, from Huntsville, wrote at No. 25:
Have any reporters tried to contact this guy? Perhaps the best comment I've seen about this story comes from a reader named Adis in Massachusetts, writing at No. 254:
Will The New York Times get around to asking such questions and pulling back the mask on higher education's ugly little world, one that is largely funded by taxpayer dollars? A lot of public money was used to support Amy Bishop's training and research. The public has a right to know if that money was used wisely.
* Has she checked copies of the committee comments that led to tenure denial? Are those comments based on facts or objective opinions--or do they reveal signs of jealousy and backbiting?
* Has she, or any other reporter, sought to interview the provost and president about their reasons for denying tenure to Bishop, even though the president praised her in glowing terms less than two years ago?
* Has she looked into instances of employees possibly being treated in abusive and unlawful ways in the University of Alabama System?
* How many taxpayer dollars were used to help train and support Amy Bishop's academic career? How did the University of Alabama manage this investment in a valuable human resource?
Bishop has some troubling incidents in her background, and it's important to look into that. But is anyone going to take a serious look at the university's handling of this case?
One of Kolata's "experts" says the Internet comments are a matter of some people "making excuses" for Bishop. How is it "making excuses" to ask questions about the bigger picture here? How is it "making excuses" to see this as a story, not just about one troubled individual, but about a university system that has grown dysfunctional.
After all, we have public statements from a former UAH student-body president saying the university's work environment is "deplorable." Has anyone interviewed him?
Some of the comments at nytimes.com provide more insight on the UAH story than we get from the newspaper's reporting. A reader named Joel, from Huntsville, wrote at No. 25:
She was screwed over, no doubt about that, but that's no excuse to kill someone else. I was there at the shooting and still having trouble wrapping my mind around it.
Have any reporters tried to contact this guy? Perhaps the best comment I've seen about this story comes from a reader named Adis in Massachusetts, writing at No. 254:
This is tragic! My condolences to all affected. However, this is an opportunity to review the conditions and processes that have led to this tragedy. How does a faculty member whose teaching evaluations are not below normal, who has produced an article a year, $217,000 in NIH funding from 2008 and an award winning patented product of her research that has attracted $1.2 mill. in investor funds get denied tenure? The academia is a place for knowledge production and not beauty contest where you can just vote down the face or attitude you don't like. These later categories are so subjective and hard to measure that many tenure decision makers have hidden under them to oppress tenure track faculty who don't get along with them. The system is rotten in many places and abuse of power is rife. This is a good time to address this disfunctionality.
Will The New York Times get around to asking such questions and pulling back the mask on higher education's ugly little world, one that is largely funded by taxpayer dollars? A lot of public money was used to support Amy Bishop's training and research. The public has a right to know if that money was used wisely.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
