tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post7135319165156198118..comments2024-03-18T03:27:18.777-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: A Dummies Guide to Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report: The Shorter VersionEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger93125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-64132565928842602412010-11-05T02:53:48.013-04:002010-11-05T02:53:48.013-04:00Ralph:
1) Yes, we agree, i.e., i.e., I interpreted...Ralph:<br />1) Yes, we agree, i.e., i.e., I interpreted your "this kind of crap" as plagiarism in general, but noted I expected it was mostly of students. When I was a a computer science instructor 40 years ago, I must have caught ~10 students/term copying final project programs.<br /><br />2) ORI: we agree. I was in a hurry and should have said more.<br />According to ORI, they have never debarred an institution, and indeed, I doubt it would happen to GMU. I am just pointing out that ORI has a bigger club than many in the blogosphere realize and that their interest may well grow well beyond Wegman & Said into parts of GMU's research administration. The provost had interesting comments in <a href="http://provost.gmu.edu/integrity/index.html" rel="nofollow">2001</a>.<br /><br />There have been hints of other problems, as well as the potential mis-use of funds, 3 dissertations with plagiarism and unimpressive supervision of PhDs. For example, how carefully is anyone watching when a dissertation cites less than half its references? Only some of this is of interest to ORI, but one of the lessons in this whole exercise is that sometimes many more problems appear when you start looking hard.<br /><br />The question is whether this is localized or part of a wider problem. I certainly don't know.<br /><br />Deepending on what really went on, some higher heads might have roll, although there is plenty of murkiness to go around. Given that some well-funded entities of GMU seem to exist to ~eliminate the Federal government, it may well be that funding agencies take a much closer look. I know there are perfectly-reasonable people at GMU (I even sent a few heads-ups so they would be warned).<br /><br />Of course we also know GMU graduates Cuccinelli and Russell are forcing U VA to waste a lot of money, so taking a hard look at GMU does not seem unfair.<br /><br />Anyway, I certainly don't think institutional debarment is at all likely, but in talking with academic friends, the idea of messing with ORI just induces shudders, because ORI does have the club, which of course means they don't have to use it.<br /><br />SOME THOUGHT QUESTIONS: OPINIONS FROM ACADEMICS?<br />From Dan Vergano's <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/10/wegman-plagiarism-investigation-/1" rel="nofollow">article</a> one finds the <a href="http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/science-fair/2010/10/07/gmuletterx-large.jpg?loc=interstitialskip" rel="nofollow">teh 07/28 letter</a> from GMU to Bradley.<br /><br />From that letter, what might you infer about the date of the 1st inquiry committee meeting?<br /><br />Put another way, at your school, assuming a complaint like this arrived to a VP Research,say 03/15/10:<br /><br />A: when would you consider a normal interval until the 1st meeting of an inquiry committee? <br /><br />B: By what date would you worry that something was wrong?<br /><br />[I am keen to get opinions from additional academics, most helpfully in the next few days.]John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-20863995693051779112010-11-05T00:46:14.477-04:002010-11-05T00:46:14.477-04:00John - I agree with most of what you are saying. ...John - I agree with most of what you are saying. <br /><br />There is the scrutiny of this process right now because this was not reasonably prompt. I would hope that Mason - or most schools - hasn't seen this kind of problem before.<br /><br />I am sure Mason get lots of cases of students doing this on papers. I am an academic, and I have far too much experience with this myself. Sadly, I discovered another problem paper from a student this week. I probably have turned in about 10 students over my career. There are procedures in place, and you follow them. (Usually you turn it over and then follow the recommendation of an honor court.) Failing grade, suspension, or expulsion, depending on the seriousness of the case. <br /><br />You can't compare that with faculty being involved. That HAS to be a rare event. None of the<br />penalties or procedures are the same. Students don't have lawyers involved (by university code). The media doesn't care, and there are not political implications of what you do, <br /><br />I don't believe that institutional disbarment is a real threat. Yes... DHHS ORI has that power. However, to wade into this case when it involves congressional testimony about climate change right after republican's just won control of the house would be agency suicide. Penalizing an entire university of scientists who have nothing to do with this case just won't happen. Imagine the video of the fired graduate students and postdocs giving interviews on Fox news, CNN, and MSNBC about how they lost their job because an investigation went too slowly. <br /><br />I certainly could imagine individuals facing this, but not the entire university. You don't burn down the forest because there are a couple bad trees.<br /><br />BTW - I know of some institutions that run all PhD dissertations through "turnitin.com" to check for plagiarism. It is incredible how often these schools find problems in the final drafts. Fortunately, most schools believe their students don't plagiarize, so they don't check their dissertations for plagiarism. This solve the problem nicely.<br /><br />Anonymous RalphAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-59728796174390077202010-11-04T20:00:17.858-04:002010-11-04T20:00:17.858-04:00Ralph:
1) I know someone who has handled 50 cases ...Ralph:<br />1) I know someone who has handled 50 cases at their university, although I suspect most were students. Admittedly, academics of my acquaintance have expressed amazement at this one.<br /><br />2) The problem with the committee is: it was formed in April, but when did it first meet? I don't want to scoop somebody, but "April or May" isn't the right answer.<br /><br />3) Re: Stough: the issue is that other universities have an eye on this. Universities must be seen to handle academic misconduct complaints fairly for the respondents and complainants both, and that includes reasonable promptness. Finally, there is DHHS ORI. GMU does get ~$80M/year in Federal grants...<br /><br />4) Bradley gave GMU every chance to handle this straightforwardly and quietly and they didn't.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-55575284169014144962010-11-04T17:03:24.108-04:002010-11-04T17:03:24.108-04:00I am not certain, but I suspect that Mason and mos...I am not certain, but I suspect that Mason and most Universities very very rarely have to deal with this kind of crap. I am not surprised at all that this is taking a long time, although I also don't understand the delay between the initial formation of the committee and the other events. However, I think it is extremely likely that having lawyers in the midst of this changes everything. <br /><br />I also can't imagine the results of this going public in a big way in the form of Mason press release. It would be in the interest of Mason to come to some kind of settlement that doesn't make the Washington Post. Quietly buying someone to get out would seem more likely, particularly if lawyers are taking about suing.<br /><br />I think releasing the update that Mason on the investigation status by Ray Bradley was a a good choice. Despite the fact that being careful is critical here, the reality of this affecting the reputation of the school. Beyond that... it is good they can't just ignore it and hope it goes away.<br /><br />Although I don't know exactly what John was referring to, I am also very happy I don't have Stough's job now either.<br /><br />I would also state that it seems very likely that Wegman's department had no clue that this was going on. Apparently he is "Computational and Data Sciences", and it has a group of people working in simulation and data related fields. None of them are climate researchers. I met the department chair, and there is no way he would tolerate this if he had even the slightest hint there was an issue. I am not sure how heavily he has been featured. I haven't seen him getting promoted by the university on this work. <br /><br />Anonymous RalphAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-83123726565049597542010-11-03T11:19:44.467-04:002010-11-03T11:19:44.467-04:00"That may well be...." is quite plausibl..."That may well be...." is quite plausible, just wrong.<br />Academe tends to give an institution a chance to show good faith until proven otherwise, because most do, especially on something so straightforward.<br /><br />Talk to academic friends, some views differ by country.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-50125253404506838172010-11-03T10:27:21.955-04:002010-11-03T10:27:21.955-04:00Even I (with my more haste less speed outlook on t...Even I (with my more haste less speed outlook on this, and my innocent until <i>proved</i> guilty belief, since prima facie evidence doesn't always equate to a guilty verdict) think things are dragging a tad now.<br /><br />Is the investigation perhaps complete, but the reports are being pored over by legal types? Is that feasible without comment from GMU?<br /><br /><i>Cymraeg llygoden</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-47531384326487305352010-11-03T10:18:50.106-04:002010-11-03T10:18:50.106-04:00"Actually, what's amazing is that Ray Bra..."<i>Actually, what's amazing is that Ray Bradley was so collegial in keeping the complaint non-public for almost 7 months in the face of B.S.</i>"<br /><br />That may well be because Elsevier (and/or their lawyers) probably told RB to "keep schtum" as much as any (strained?) collegiality on RB's part.<br /><br /><i>Cymraeg llygoden</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-40023096765980077832010-11-03T03:27:18.059-04:002010-11-03T03:27:18.059-04:00Eli: can you say more on "featured"?Eli: can you say more on "featured"?John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-30401295450178794672010-11-03T01:59:44.741-04:002010-11-03T01:59:44.741-04:00Wegman should just rewrite the report, add citatio...Wegman should just rewrite the report, add citations and direct quotations and sentences like "follows closely from Bradley". And also issue an apology. People could still rip at him for the plagiarism itself and for the report's mathematics. Or say "it's not enough". But it would blow over. And it would not cost him his job. Plus it would be the right thing to do.<br /><br />The defensiveness is going to get him into more trouble than anything else. I was pretty bugged by the refusal to show his methods to Ritson as well.<br /><br />He did a sloppy job on a complicated issue. Like McShane and Whyner. Maybe he will learn his lesson that it is not so simple to add value cross-field. That he needs to be more buttoned up when wandering into battle in foreign lands. I mean Jolliffe was very honest about how much effort it would take to truly untangle Mann and MnM and "what matters": full code, weeks, and acess to ask questions. And that was a PCA expert!<br /><br />I think the Mashey-DC stuff with conspiracies (even the name "deep climate") is overblown. Heck, I could blather about Fenton and CRU if I want, but I just have too much balls for that. That said, Wegman has not impressed on several aspects of scholarship...just hasn't lived up to the billing. <br /><br />And McI and the skeptics have not impressed with their tauting of him. WAy too ready and way too convenient. ARgument by authority when it helps you, but not when it doesn't. Hypocritical and rinky dink. Why oh why do my skeptics overreach? Why can't they be skeptical of both sides?PolyisTCOandbannednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60291172801002892010-11-02T21:39:35.445-04:002010-11-02T21:39:35.445-04:00It's a bit of a stretch to paint Wegman as an ...It's a bit of a stretch to paint Wegman as an innocent in the forest. Both the report and his testimony show this to be wrong. <br /><br />GMUs problem is that they have heavily featured Wegman, Wegman's students and Wegman's program as part of their push into research and graduate study. To find him involved in a scandal of his own devising is devastating.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-25572481525901379412010-11-02T21:31:55.423-04:002010-11-02T21:31:55.423-04:00As it happens, GMU is now 7+ months into this with...As it happens, GMU is now 7+ months into this without having given a clear indication this has gotten beyond inquiry into investigation, the note in USA Today notwithstanding. Stough claimed in the letter at USA Today that the inquiry committee had been formed in April ... and their rules require the respondent to be informed *then*. Wegman's seeming Facebook surprise in mid-August is fascinating. Either Wegman knew about it and didn't take it seriously, or GMU didn't tell him, or perhaps were doing their best to delay.<br /><br />For reasons I cannot explain at this time, I am very glad to not to have Roger Stough's job at this time.<br /><br />A school could decide to do inquiry, form a committee, do one as simple as this, clear someone or recommend an investigation ... in a week an half. [Yes, this does happen that fast.] Schools do much more complex full investigations in less months than this.<br /><br />Serious people at other schools are following this closely, at the university President, VP Research level ... so are some serious statisticians. Ralph didn't mention DHHS ORI, possessor of serious <a href="http://ori.dhhs.gov/misconduct/oversight.shtml" rel="nofollow">teeth</a>, not just for individual researchers but for whether or not organizations are doing their job. Read about "debarment" at DHHS ORI.<br /><br />When an allegation of serious, high-profile academic misconduct arrives, from a distinguished professor at a respected school, but with details *already* public:<br /><br />a) The school owes the professor a *rapid* inquiry if they deserve to be cleared, especially when the material is already public, but ambiguous. {In this case, there was no ambiguity in the plagiarism, one can argue about which items were fabrication (which is why Bradley avoided that), but the ambiguity of a 3-author report is: who was responsible?<br /><br />b) The school owes a whole lot of people a rapid inquiry and investigation if it turns out there is a problem. if it becomes clear that a school doesn't handle the *simplest* academic misconduct well, they are headed for serious trouble, not just in academe, but with ORI.<br /><br />c) So far, GMU has not performed well, and I believe additional information will become available in the not-too-distant future that will back this statement. (So, don't take me on faith, but bunnies should keep eyes open.)<br /><br />Actually, what's amazing is that Ray Bradley was so collegial in keeping the complaint non-public for almost 7 months in the face of B.S.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-64518241863861876202010-11-02T16:05:58.668-04:002010-11-02T16:05:58.668-04:00I am confident that GMU will do a full and complet...I am confident that GMU will do a full and complete job of investigating this. The people at the university are serious scientists who do realize the gravity of this issue. Mason does have a reputation of having some right wing people on its governing board, but that has nothing to do with his procedures, operations or in particular, its faculty. This is not going to be whitewashed or ignored. That simply can't happen.<br /><br />Having said that, the process is likely to be careful and deliberate. I am quite sure that lawyers will get involved on all sides at some point, and you need to document and follow procedures carefully. I wouldn't be surprised if they are already involved. <br /><br />However, GMU is also in a no-win situation. If they take strong sanction against Wegman, the right wing will decry this as persecution of someone who went against the "massive climate conspiracy" (or some equivalent nonsense). If they don't take strong sanctions, the climate people will decry Mason as a "bed of conservative climate deniers" by everyone. <br /><br />For me, this seems like a greek tragedy. I believe Wegman is a serious scientist who wrote a bad paper. This paper was co-opted by a political cause, and convinced it was extremely important and needed to come to the attention of congress. As more people became critical, more time was spent defending the original paper. Then these mistakes were turned into a very sloppy congressional report that was largely ignored by the scientific community. It is likely that sections of it were written by a current or former grad student and it wasn't carefully checked before it was published because of unknown reasons - most likely arrogance and misplaced trust. This probably isn't the first problems in in his career, but lines have been crossed and there are a lot of people who now are focusing on him with the intent of taking him down.<br /><br />Because of this arrogance, he might lose his job. I am not saying that shouldn't happen, but it is a huge fall for a well known statistician. <br /><br />Anonymous RalphAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87149572124283795722010-11-01T08:48:29.767-04:002010-11-01T08:48:29.767-04:00Thanks, John. I'm reading it now. I can't ...Thanks, John. I'm reading it now. I can't believe you put so much effort in this. When I grow up I want to be just like you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-38520791112023906612010-10-31T17:20:33.662-04:002010-10-31T17:20:33.662-04:00John, Good to know there's some senior people ...John, Good to know there's some senior people watching this. I've been disappointed with how many academics of my acquaintance are generally unaware (and uninterested) in the whole assault on science. They don't dispute the need for action to reduce the impact of GHGs and they are often taking measures to reduce their personal contribution. They're just not paying attention to the dynamics of the push back. By assuming it's not their problem they increase the likelihood of it becoming their problem some day if they take a controversial stand in their own field ...<br /><br />I also think it would help to have senior people put some attention on the editorial processes that led to CSDA publishing Said et al.'s article. The article's "striking similarities" are a real issue but a less important one. Much more important is whether the system was gamed to get such a weak article through review. If important people are asking that question behind the scenes, we are more likely to get an accurate answer.Ted Kirkpatricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-11244396144636940672010-10-31T14:14:53.148-04:002010-10-31T14:14:53.148-04:00Neven:
As per CCC A.6.1, Mercatus is only one of t...Neven:<br />As per CCC A.6.1, Mercatus is only one of the GMU entities:<br />CMPA - Center for media and Public Affairs<br />InstHumn - Institute for Humane Studies [Singer was there]<br />STATS<br /><br />So, with GMU itself, that's 5 separate columns in A.6.1.<br /><br />Those are all described in CCC A.3.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-31801180437693408842010-10-31T10:58:00.226-04:002010-10-31T10:58:00.226-04:00John said:
"4) Note also that apart from oth...John said:<br /><br />"4) Note also that apart from other universities, there is DHHS ORI, with which our lagomoprh host is familiar. "<br /><br />Eli said: Well, not in the carnal sense.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1005103735488301932010-10-31T07:59:36.305-04:002010-10-31T07:59:36.305-04:00Why did the fourth person drop out of working on t...Why did the fourth person drop out of working on the Wegman report? That's the burning question, but one which is also easily explained by a number of everyday scenarios.J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21387521546337860982010-10-31T04:01:15.984-04:002010-10-31T04:01:15.984-04:00John, are you referring to this think tank?John, are you referring to this <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mercatus_Center" rel="nofollow">think tank</a>?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35555779844208873402010-10-31T00:01:59.463-04:002010-10-31T00:01:59.463-04:00Ted:
1) I do know some folks who've handled a ...Ted:<br />1) I do know some folks who've handled a few.<br /><br />2) There's nothing on the record I know of, BUT:<br /> <br />offhand, I know of 6 quite credible universities where senior people (mostly Dean or above, or at least full professors heavily involved with academic integrity issues) are watching this, and many of those schools are non-obvious, which leads me to expect there may be more. There are a bunch more where I don't know that, but know that various professors are interested, and not just from climate science.<br /><br />3) Of course, if you check Table A.6.1 in <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/crescendo-climategate-cacophony" rel="nofollow">CCC</a>, you might want to look especially at A.6.1(b), in which funding of GMU by folks like the Kochs and Richard Mellon Scaife appears. Note that the other underlined entities in A.6.1 are GMU-related. All this may be coincidental or it may be a reason for handling this as they have.<br /><br />4) Note also that apart from other universities, there is <a href="http://ori.dhhs.gov/misconduct/oversight.shtml" rel="nofollow">DHHS ORI</a>, with which our lagomoprh host is familiar.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-26931031885713396922010-10-30T22:53:13.512-04:002010-10-30T22:53:13.512-04:00Unfortunately, John, such an academic would have t...Unfortunately, John, such an academic would have to be very "experienced" indeed. These cases are rare enough that many people won't deal with a single one in the course of their careers. <br /><br />I think the Wegman case breaks new ground. The accusations and evidence are highly visible and accessible but not "published" in the sense of being reported via established academic channels. I suspect the GMU admins take (false) comfort from the belief that it's no big deal for their school's reputation because it's all "only" happening on blogs. The "people that matter" to the GMU admins (senior admins and faculty at schools GMU wants to impress) may or may not have noticed yet---I don't know. The belief by GMU that other people haven't noticed is the only explanation I can see for GMU's dilatory handling of the case. Can anyone point to on-the-record acknowledgment of the issue by senior people outside GMU?Ted Kirkpatricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-5618981828831154502010-10-30T18:40:49.251-04:002010-10-30T18:40:49.251-04:00Anon:
?? I wasn't stating an opinion or gut fe...Anon:<br />?? I wasn't stating an opinion or gut feel in the previous post, but just gave the nominal timeline and solicited opinions from others who might be familiar with such, as such information is nontrivial to get unless one is directly involved or has some reason to know about it.<br /><br />However, experienced academics would be able to make general comments about how this usually works in their schools.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-76576019871619053732010-10-30T18:15:10.185-04:002010-10-30T18:15:10.185-04:00John: be careful of overstating your case (not sa...John: be careful of overstating your case (not saying you are, just try to think that way). <br /><br />Maybe you could look at the time, taken for other academic inquiries. for instance the SUNY professor that tha English guy went after (within the climate wars) or perhaps a selection of other cases in academia. Are you really an expert on "how long unis take to investigate stuff"? Or are you just opining on this one case based on a gut instinct? It's at least possible that slow turning wheels are the norm. Not justifying that either. but it would make it a general problem rather than a variation from the norm.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-67424439451534523262010-10-29T22:35:23.325-04:002010-10-29T22:35:23.325-04:00Time for another anthropology comment:
> As so...Time for another anthropology <a href="http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/24/how-to-publish-a-scientific-comment-in-123-easy-steps/#comment-194407" rel="nofollow">comment</a>:<br /><br />> As someone who’s spent most of his life unaware of academic peer review politics – but familiar with forms of due diligence in other fields – I sometimes feel like an anthropologist among South Sea Islanders in the 19th century.<br /><br />This is only a rerun. What's more interesting is the <a href="http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/24/how-to-publish-a-scientific-comment-in-123-easy-steps/#comment-194407" rel="nofollow">comment</a> to which it's an answer. NW's story made me smile. Here it is:<br /><br />> [A] certain professor (who will remain nameless) became very, uh, skeptical of peer review in midlife. So when he finished a paper, he made a list of journals, in order of his preference, where he thought the paper might fly, and went down the list. If the first journal rejected it, he would: (i) throw away the referee reports unread; (ii) cross off the journal; (iii) wait two weeks; and (iv) send paper to next journal on the list.<br /><br />Don't forget the now famous **How To Publish A Scientific Comment in 123 Easy Steps**!willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-29613100645593097302010-10-29T19:31:12.123-04:002010-10-29T19:31:12.123-04:00Cymraeg:
1) An allegation of serious plagiarism, ...Cymraeg:<br /><br />1) An allegation of serious plagiarism, including a senior professor, where the material is already public is something most schools would want to handle as fast as possible, either to definitively clear someone or get an investigation underway. <br /><br />2) Let me set up a thought question for people:<br /><br />Here is the nominal timeline, as at DC, i.e., the first number is the cumulative elapsed days, the second is the nominal interval for that activity. The letter codes correspond to annotated copy of the policies I have.<br /><br />Nominal GMU timeline, approximate, given<br />Elapse Interval (as soon as possible) everywhere, challenges.<br /><br />0 0 A Allegation<br />14 14 B See if inquiry warranted<br />28 14 C If so Provost appoints committee Respondent may challenge<br />28 D First meeting of inquiry committee<br />88 60 E Inq. Com. completes report. Investigate? (Y/N)<br />102 14 F Dean/Director determines. Investigate? (Y/N)<br />132 30 G VP convenes investigation committee<br />132 Respondent may challenge<br />132 Respondent comments, etc.<br />252 120 H Invest. Comm reports, best efforts 120 days<br />252 VP reviews report, sees if university accepts<br />282 30 I Possible appeal<br />382 100 J President writes decision on appeal <br /><br />So, here is the thought question:<br />Suppose Day 0 (A) had been ~ 03/15/10 (Monday)<br /><br />Suppose the first meeting of an inquiry committee (D) had been been Friday 03/19/10 (+4 days), an inquiry completed by 03/24/10. That would be amazingly fast, but would certainly show the university recognized the issue and acted quickly. That's one imaginable extreme. The nominal timeline above would predict no later than +28 days.<br /><br />Now, I'm curious to hear people's opinions, especially anyone with relevant academic experience. Obviously, this is subjective.<br /><br />By what date (D1) would people start thinking GMU were pretty slow?<br />By what date (D2) would people think GMU was doing serious foot-dragging, maybe even stonewalling?<br /><br />Remember, we are just talking about the first meeting of the *inquiry* committee.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-90420050937486019882010-10-29T18:40:49.918-04:002010-10-29T18:40:49.918-04:00I will check your timeline tomorrow John, but ther...I will check your timeline tomorrow John, but there is also this in the GMU rules:<br /><br />"The inquiry committee completes the inquiry, including the preparation of a final inquiry report that includes any comments received from the respondent, within 60 days of the committee’s first meeting unless the Dean or Director determines, and documents in the inquiry record, that the circumstances warrant a longer period."<br /><br />So, while one would hope it would be much shorter than 60 days, it could conceivably have taken, what(?), until the end of June just for the inquiry committee to say yes there's a case to answer according to its own rules.<br /><br />And from GMU's own letter you link to it seems they were having problems getting people to meet up then.<br /><br />So was that the Dean/Director saying then that the initial process would overrun the 60 days? Seems likely, now.<br /><br />And yes, I'd agree that's probably not good enough. But the wheels of due process do grind slow at times, especially when lawyers get involved too.<br /><br /><i>Cymraeg llygoden</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com