Monday, May 5, 2008
Ethical? Moral? Let’s Vote!
As mentioned previously, everyone around here has been in at tizzy over the Heather Bresch scandal, and the actions or inactions of WVU President Mike Garrison.
Michael and I are in disagreement over what should happen. He says that there’s no proof that Garrison did anything wrong, so he should resign or be censured. I say, of course there’s no evidence. He’s a lawyer; He would have first and foremost covered his tracks.
And I think that’s where much of the university–and even the state–stands as well. Split over whether Garrison did wrong or not, and what those actions or inactions mean for WVU.
Well, today is the faculty senate special meeting to vote on whether Garrison should be forced to resign or be censured.
Mind you , this time last year the faculty senate was debating a vote of no confidence, in response to what was seen as a rigged selection process, as well as Garrison’s ties with various politicians throughout the state.
There may be no evidence as to Garrison’s wrongdoing, but I’d like to point out two things. First, this was the kind of problem many faculty members were worried about when Garrison was selected. Second, whether Garrison took action action that was unethical or not, he is perceived as acting in an unethical manner, and is thus tarnishing the reputation of the University (WVU has lost at least $1 million in donations due to the scandal.)
Even if Garrison did not directly influence the committee that gave Bresch her unearned degree, he also did nothing to distance himself from the decision and to reduce the appearance of impropriety. And when you are president of the state flagship university, appearances are just as important as actions.
ADDENDUM the First:
Faculty Senate made a vote of no confidence, and recommended that Garrison resign.
It doesn’t matter in the slightest, since the faculty senate has no power, but apparently the faculty senate overwhelmingly disapproved of Garrison’s actions (77 to 19).
Loading ...
May 5th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I’m with Michael on this one (at least I think I am – his position isn’t very clear in your post). People’s impressions aside, if you couldn’t make a case for his censure in civil court, then he shouldn’t be censured.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I think it’s a question of what would be admissible.
There was no evidence that she had completed her degree requirements, except hearsay. Three of his top advisers attended the meeting where she was given her degree. There are reports that there was pressure exerted at the meeting to give her a degree. Members of the committee who were to make the decision were given a single weekend to find evidence related to the case. Heather Bresch’s first call was to Garrison, personally. Not only is Heather Bresh the daughter of the governor, she is also COO to a company that is one of the largest contributors to WVU (the football stadium is named after the head and founder of the company).
Do we have a tape of Garrison telling people to give her the degree? No. Do we have anyone willing to say they were directly told to give her a degree, regardless of the evidence? No.
But what we do have is a president with direct connections to the governor–connections that were a concern to the WVU community during the interview process, and led the faculty senate to consider a vote of no confidence a week after he was selected. We have a president who’s focus has been upon fund-raising. We have a student who was given a degree despite all evidence to the contrary that she did the work to complete her degree requirements. We have a situation where a decision was made within a few days of her phone call to the university president.
We have had multiple resignations in response to the scandal already, yet Garrison’s response has been primarily to say that it wasn’t his fault, and when the student newspaper sponsored a forum where students could speak out about the scandal, Garrison was “unable to attend.”
WVU has been struggling for years to change it’s image from a top party school to an institution with top-notch research and education. Garrison’s actions have done nothing to help the image of the university, and a great deal to harm it.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
In case you couldn’t tell, I’m rather protective of the reputation of WVU, and get very unhappy with people who tarnish that reputation. (See Chris Henry and Pacman Jones for others who have incurred my wrath by making WVU look bad.)
May 6th, 2008 at 9:55 am
I think Pitt now beats WVU in both research and partying. :p
May 6th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Well, I’ll take the second, but I’ll thumb wrestle you about the first.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Sorry, no need to thumb wrestle: #24 vs. #117 in the latest available NSF rankings and #9 vs #105 in the NIH rankings.
You guys have a long way to go before you develop a Chemistry Dept. even close to Pitt’s, or a center of medical excellence even close to Starzl’s transplant clinic.
But you do beat the pants off of us in USDA support. GO WVU!!!
May 6th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Hey, we’re in the top rankings for Rural Health!
And as many believe that should be the focus of WV’s flagship school anyway, I’m good with that. (It does two things–it gets students out into the community to provide health care to rural communities, and it exposes them to rural life, and the needs of these communities, which has increased the number of students willing to practice in rural areas. Pretty awesome actually.)
May 6th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Yeah, Pitt is not an altrusitic school by any stretch of the imagination.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I told you I’m defensive about WVU. :)
It comes from growing up in WVU, I think, and being defensive about everything to do with the state.
But our rural health program is pretty awesome.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
[...] follow-up to the Faculty Senate vote happened today. The Faculty Assembly gathered for a vote of no confidence and demand for Garrison [...]