Prof Brad DeLong dislodges an academic grain of sand, and formally requests academic action on the question Prof Yoo.
The immediate response is repose.
We will see if the talus slope is ever exceeded. Inertia works both ways, even at the institutional level.
Another episode of linking as a public good.
PS Interesting back-and-forth at Volokh on the issue
and Brian Leiter's take on it - he takes a narrow interpretation that tenured faculty misconduct are strictly limited to internal academic affairs.
It should be noted that the Berkeley conduct guide explicitly notes that its list of misconduct is not exhaustive.
University discipline under this Code may be imposed on a faculty member only
for conduct which is not justified by the ethical principles and which significantly
impairs the University's central functions as set forth in the Preamble. To the
extent that violations of University policies mentioned in the examples below are
not also inconsistent with the ethical principles, these policy violations may not be
independent grounds for imposing discipline as defined herein. The Types of
Unacceptable Conduct listed [...] are examples of types
of conduct which meet the preceding standards and hence are presumptively
subject to University discipline. Other types of serious misconduct, not
specifically enumerated herein, may nonetheless be the basis for disciplinary
action if they also meet the preceding standards.
Leiter focuses on section A
Section C.7 seems to be of some relevance: 7. Serious violation of University policies governing the professional conduct of faculty, including but not limited to policies applying to research, outside professional activities, conflicts of commitment, clinical practices, violence in the workplace, and whistleblower protections.
Of course there is also D.1 - "Making evaluations of the professional competence of faculty members by criteria not directly reflective of professional performance."
There is also, as I interpret the situation, a three year clock on discipline, and it has started ticking. I suspect Berkeley could easily stall this for three years making the issue moot.
- Log in to post comments
Wouldn't the most responsible thing to do be to wait to see if he is charged with anything, and then censure him if in fact he has been proven guilty in a court of law?
That would generally be sufficient, but is far from necessary.
Specifically, universities routinely conduct internal investigations and impose disciplinary actions independent of, or before criminal investigations have run their course.
Nor does the standard of proof rise to that of "reasonable doubt".
For example, tenured law professors have lost their positions over sexual assault allegations.
Now, there is a different standard of proof for actions related to internal university interactions and external actions - eg sexual assault of a student might be treated differently from allegations of assault of third parties while on leave...
A professor who groped the genitals of a student would generally face disciplinary action, even if the action fell short of a criminal conviction.
A professor who organized a campus group which actually went out and groped peoples genitals without their consent would generally face discipline - especially if they issued written guidelines that permitted and encouraged such acts?
A professor who issues written authoritative guidelines for third parties over which they have supervisory responsibility, which encourages or permits them to administer electrical shocks to genitals of third parties, without their consent. You make the call?
It is certainly not clear to me that UC can refrain from investigating the situation.
I could see scenarios in which the university declines to act after an internal investigation.