Oh, where to begin?
I've heard that the German language is hard. Its words are unusually long.
All professors like to expose students to their field and even show a little bit of their personality to keep students interested.
Given recent blows to our retirement funds, I can understand why this guy wants to stick it out for a few more years.
What am I talking about? Full story here, which begins:
A University of New Hampshire professor who exposed himself to a mother and her 17-year-old daughter in Milford nearly two years ago will keep his job, according to an arbitrator’s ruling provided to the New Hampshire Union Leader.
UNH has been trying to fire Edward Larkin, a professor of German, since September 2009, about two months after he showed his genitals in a Market Basket parking lot. Larkin contested his termination, arguing it violated the terms of the faculty union contract, and was put on leave, earning his full salary of about $88,000, as the dispute dragged on.
The arbitrator's report is here and contains details from police reports and the trial.
There are two things that make me shake my head about this. First, that our society has fallen so low that exposing yourself to two women is not considered a "moral delinquency of a grave order". There seems to be no disputing the circumstances of the case. Second, the reaction of the faculty union's president is sad. From the same article:
“I think it was a just ruling,” Wood said. “What we were concerned about was not whether this was a moral lapse, or even a behavioral lapse, but that the conditions of the contract were being followed and this statement about moral delinquency of a grave order had never been tested before.”
I assume that the faculty member can request arbitration without the union's approval, so I don't blame the union for the outcome of the case. However, I'm disappointed that the union president expressed approval of the outcome. One semester of unpaid leave after two years of paid leave, followed by continuation of his tenured job, doesn't seem just.
The union should have thrown this guy under the bus. Instead, the it appears to support a member (ahem) at all costs to protect, what? The ability of faculty to perform acts that don't quite get them registered as sex offenders? It's an aspect of unions - the desire to maintain a quantity of members instead of a quality of members - that I do not understand.
Sure, unions don't want to erode their influence but this is a Pyrrhic victory. How will state legislatures view faculty benefits and barganing power now when budgets get tight? Of course that's not fair to punish all faculty due to this idiot's behavior but the faculty allow the union to represent them. This is what they get.
Feel free to ream me in the comments below, as if you need an invitation.
Public support of unions is badly damaged when they set out to enforce the contract of someone who has done something criminal. And as you say Ben, this moron and his crotch should have been thrown under the bus. I don't care if his junk came out on his own private time, and off campus, an employer shouldn't have to keep some who gets himself a damn conviction (The penalty described in the article didn't seem like much, did it.)
ReplyDeleteUnions should stick to what unions historically did best. Keep up respectable working conditions and compensation for their membership. Unions should not be obliged to fight for the rights that ought to be forfeited when someone commits some such violation.
This union is throwing itself under the bus by pulling a stunt like this.
Your beef is with the arbitrator for deciding the professor's crime was a "moral delinquency" and not a "moral delinquency of a grave order". It is possible to be disgusted by the professor but not believe his entire life should be destroyed because of what is obviously a sickness. It is situations like this that require laws, regulations, independent decisions makers, and groups to defend unpopular people's rights (like unions, gasp!).
ReplyDeleteBeginning to end this is a sad story with no simple answers. Or you could just blame the union for not leading the lynch mod to get this monster. Not sure if that counts as being reamed but there it is.
Jesus h, UNH needs to get its house in order. If the best experts say that Proffie Larkin has a mental illness, then he is protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Firing him or isolating him in a "rubber room" is not a good idea.
ReplyDeleteWorse yet, the university acknowledges that "the Language Department is a particularly fractious, stressful environment."
Perhaps President Huddleston should be more concerned about this loon suing the university for forcing him to endure a mental illness-inducing, hostile work environment.
More importantly, this is past the point of putting out fires. Even if Huddleston terminates this head case, the university's still going to have a stressful work environment (and, likewise, a stressful learning environment for its students) on its hands.
No doubt we're not privy to all the background insanity. This is apparently one of the horrors that Huddleston inherited when he arrived at UNH four years ago. For all we know, he's been throwing money and attention at it since the day he arrived.
Fuck if I'd want to work in such a place. I trust very few people at my school, but at least the environment hasn't driven me to insanity.
Furthermore....
ReplyDeleteSorry, Ben ... cannot jump to your level of moral indignation.
ReplyDeleteThe sort of automatic punishment you advocate is precisely the devoid of nuance "strict Constitutional" attitude of the Tea Party/anti-union crowd.
Yes, of course, at first blush, this is precisely the sort of anecdotal outrage the anti-union crowd lathers over.
But, I thought academics sought more than simple anecdotes. Larkin was charged with indecent exposure which COULD have resulted from mom and daughter turning a corner and finding Larkin urinating. Apparently, he plead out under a option provided by NH law to basically avoid a trial. (He plead not guilty but under this particular plea, but the judge enters a guilty verdict.)
New Hampshire is a reddest of red states and the Union Leader was a FOX News outlet before there was a FOX News. So, it is not surprising that details of Larkin's offense are difficult to come by and the vast majority of comments echo anti-union "unions just protect slackers" talking point.
Most articles are on the arbitrator's decision. Determining what originally happened is difficult as, apparently, beyond brief mentions of the arrest, the incident itself didn't garner all that much attention. The Boston Herald, June 2009, indicated the offense was a misdemeanor.
So, details are seriously lacking.
But if one can bypass the "ewww" factor of the nature of the crime, it was not considered -- legally -- that significant.
And, as union supporters point out, the entire point of HAVING a contract is to give the employee the right to due process before termination, which Larkin received.
The arbitrator -- not the big, bad, union -- was who decided the merits of the case did not warrant termination. It was suggested that punishment already recommended by the faculty senate - one semester suspension without pay followed by three years probation where no similar incidents can occur.
On the other side of the coin, in the very same paper,
"Parents coming to grips with the arrest of a popular middle school music teacher on rape charges will now have to explain to their children why a week-long summer band program is being canceled."
This teacher has been charged with rape -- actual sexual assault of a child in his school.
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20110702/NEWS03/707029991/0/NEWS
This should-be-former professor is a SEX OFFENDER!!!! What's more his sex crime was committed against a minor. Union lover or not, you must appreciate that.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I don't know how he can legally continue to do what he does. Where I'm from sex offenders who commit crimes against minors aren't supposed to be within X feet of schools. A good portion of the Froshflakes at my school are 17.
Seems to me that it is time to cut some funding in that foreign language department. I can find $88k a year that can be spent on decent chalk and photocopies. I'm sure that they can find a couple of bad evals and the fact that he hasn't been pulling his weight in the department for the last two years really works against him. ;-)
@A&S
ReplyDeleteAny facts which cast doubt on Larkin's guilt do complicate things. Based on the links I provided and other sources, it looked like he plead guilty but maybe that was a sham. The idea that somebody would pee in an open parking lot seems unlikely (as somebody who has pissed in many parking lots) but there could be more to the story. I looked at several sources but found them all to be pretty consistent. If you could find some reporting with alternative interpretations, I'd be interested in hearing it. It is possible that the guy is a perv even though it would be consistent with the Tea Party/anti-union crowd.
@ Bucky and A&S
Yes, the administrator is ultimately to blame for this outcome. Presumably, his views reflect those of the wider public, which is sad. People with "traditional family values" and progressive views of women's rights should weep.
My main beef was with the union president who thought this was a just outcome. I would much prefer that she say, "Our contract was interpreted incorrectly, in a way that allowed this shit bag to keep his job. That was never our intention when whe negociated the contract twenty years ago. We will address this issue during the next collective bargaining agreement." The result would have been the same - the guy would still have his job - but the union, and more importantly, the faculty would look better.
@ CMP
It sounds like he avoided the sex offender status by a few hundred bucks in the amount of the fine. This raises an interesting point about "moral failings" being related to legal status. Ideally, moral failings should stand on their own merits but I can see how legal status could be an attractive proxy for an arbitrator.
@BB
ReplyDelete"My main beef was with the union president who thought this was a just outcome."
Except this is the crucial issue.
Again, beyond the "eeew" factor of Larkin's offense, under the contract, he was entitled to due process, which he received.
This is a cornerstone, a main selling point, of collective bargaining contracts.
A neutral third party -- the arbitrator -- determined this one offense was not sufficiently egregious to warrant termination.
Larkin was punished by the university (semester suspension without pay) and had conditions attached to continued employment (three years of no similar incidents, counseling).
For the people insisting he be summarily terminated, would you be advocating for what amounts to the corporate death penalty for other misdemeanor offenses -- trespassing, disorderly conduct, public intoxication?
The indignation seems to be squarely focused not on the fact that he was convicted of a minor crime, but that crime allows people to call him a "perv" and tap in to classic American angst over anything sexual.
Why else would so many people be ready to toss someone under the bus for an incident that is seriously devoid of specificity and detail?
"The indignation seems to be squarely focused not on the fact that he was convicted of a minor crime, but that crime allows people to call him a "perv" and tap in to classic American angst over anything sexual."
ReplyDeleteA&S, I think any woman with her daughter in a parking lot would feel quite threatened and/or violated by a guy making them a party to his sexual gratification in such a matter. (If we assume the reporting mirrors what happened). Classic American angst over anything sexual has more to do with that Lady Gaga character and her lot there on the MTV, and not instances like this.
@Dr. C ... I'd be inclined to agree with you IF we knew the details of Larkin's offense.
ReplyDeleteWe don't.
People are extrapolating based upon incomplete accounts from a less than neutral press outlet.
For example, you, yourself, concede "if we assume reporting mirrors what happens," but then insert "sexual gratification" as a motivating factor. It says nothing but they saw his genitals.
So, unless/until more information is obtained about exactly what happened, I stand by my assessment of American sexual angst.
Replace "indecent exposure" with "trespassing" or "public intoxication" -- would we be having this conversation?
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that a violent video game is free speech and that the government can't prohibit minors from buying/playing the game--even if the game engages the player in raping, killing, or urinating on another (virtual) person. And most of us have been exposed to unsolicited and unwanted online nakedness (e.g., penis-enhancement spam, pop-up porn). And there are clothes-optional public beaches in America. And most anybody who grew up on a farm has seen lots of funny-looking penises. All legal.
ReplyDeleteSo what's the big deal about a skinny old proffie exposing his flaccid little weenie from across a safe, public, well-lit parking lot? Fuck if I know. He didn't assault anybody or attempt to assault anybody. He paid his fine and he kept his dean in the loop. He was just some harmless, disturbed fucktard.
But I wouldn't want to work with him.
At a good school, in a good department, I would sit down with such a colleague and say, "Listen, you need to get help. And here's what I can do to help you get help...."
At a bad school, in a bad department, I would probably avoid him entirely.
Re: knowing the details
ReplyDeleteStated before: "We don't."
But we do.
@ Bubba
ReplyDeleteI did a pretty thorough web search and didn't find this. Curious how you did.
OK ... so his action appears deliberate, though he did not admit guilt. Psychological evaluators diagnosed Larkin with relevant mental illness; he received treatment while the criminal case/arbitration proceeded.
Still, the crux of the matter is that he was entitled to due process, received it, and a third party (and the Faculty Senate) determined Larkin's behavior did not warrant termination.
@A&S: Not just curious, but really suspiciously and intriguingly curious.
ReplyDelete8-)
ReplyDeleteActually Bubba, academically curious.
ReplyDeleteSome of us actually do utilize the Interwebs for legitimate research.
I once had a student ignore the hand-out and instead go down hir own unnecessary avenues.
ReplyDeleteReally great student. Just kind of distracted sometimes.
ReplyDelete