Most Lame Story Ever

This has got the be the most lame story every. An employee gets in trouble and shock... he still gets paid for vacation he accrued while an employee. This is no shock, this is what is “right", if he was not paid for time he accrued this would be illegal. What a bunch of sensationalism over nothing.

Jason, at 12:01 pm EDT on August 11, 2005

So where does it stop, if you get a speeding ticket and your company decided to fire you because of it. You’ve worked there for 10 years and wasn’t able to use all your vacation time. So you’re out of it. If you would have used your vacation time before your conviction, the company would have had to pay it. But since you’re convicted of a crime they don’t have to. I don’t think so. I don’t agree with what they did, but if you give companies a way not to have to pay employees. Companies will run with it and it will be your responsibility to prove it otherwise.

richard, at 1:33 pm EDT on August 11, 2005

Tell ya what...

These cases—felonies—call for immediate dismissal. Period. The issues of accrued vacation, paid time off, or whatever benefits are normally forthcoming ALL DEPEND ON THE EMPLOYEE BEING IN GOOD STANDING. Clearly, these jackasses are not.

As an attorney, my attitude would be to terminate them and yank ANY remaining benefits. Then, if these guys actually think a law has been violated or THEIR rights have been trampled on, then perhaps they—convicted felons—should bring a suit against the State of Wisconsin/UW.

See how far THAT lawsuit goes. The reality is these guys wouldn’t have the guts to proceed with such a case.

Drew B., UW-Madison, at 3:00 pm EDT on August 11, 2005

I am floored as to how violent and predatory crimes like these are now just “moral turpitude.” We are not talking about someone using medical marijuana or caught behind the wheel after “one drink too many.” By all means give them due process, but part of due process is to expedite matters and not drag things out. Failing to quickly resolve these cases implies tolerance or ambivalence of seriousness these acts by the school (not the message you want to give to students or their sponsors). Here, the involved DAs have done the investigative legwork and the courts have evaluated it to clear guilty conclusions — probably using far more stringent criteria of guilt than an academic dismissal hearing. A hearing with the facts of the offenses in the context of the academic environment is all that is needed — and people have gotten their tenure jerked from them and shown the door for far less and right quickly, too!

Bill, at 8:11 pm EDT on August 11, 2005

Drew, In many cases these benefits have already vested, so they might not be subject to termination if someone is convicted of a felony. Whether or not they have a viable lawsuit, of course, depends upon state law, and although you probably are ultimately correct, this issue is not as simple as you are making it out.

Bart, Professors and college students are adults. While it may be unethical for a 40-year-old to have sex with a student, there is nothing illegal about them having consensual sex if the student is over whatever the age of consent is. (Even in Virginia.)

Bill, “Moral Turpitude” is a general term to differentiate crimes such as sexual assault from crimes which require the proof of someone lower mental states. So, it is likely that a professor might not be fired after conviction for, say, driving with a suspended operators license.

Chris, The chief reason that universities proceed with caution in these instances is that pending the resolution of the criminal matter someone, the individual is simply not guilty of a crime. Indeed, in public universities since the state is technically accusing them of a crime and paying their salary at the same time, it would probably be a violation of the professor’s due process rights for the state to simply arrest a person, and then decide that they should not be paid their back salary.

Finally, I should note that many jurisdictions do not have the same procedural safeguards that Americans enjoy. Indeed, as other stories in IHE seem to note, people can face very serious criminal penalties in some countries for research that is deemed to be politically dangerous. To automatically discharge someone upon accusation of a crime or upon conviction (in one of these beautiful foreign cultures) would probably be somewhat unfair (and likely unconstitutional.)

Also, folks, as the earlier posters pointed out: this is much ado about nothing. It will all work itself out.

Larry, at 10:47 am EDT on August 12, 2005

A couple of comments from someone at Madison. First the Barrows case. He was a senior administrator serving at the pleasure of the chancellor. Barrows’ short affair with a forty year old grad student, as he has described her, caused the chancellor to lose faith in him. It’s the chancellor’s call. As Barrows had no direct authority over her, no ethical issues were involved. A faculty member entering into a similiar relationship would not be subject to disciplinary action, and most faculty would to hesitate to advance an ethical criticism.

Second, universities cannot just fire faculty. Like any large organization we have to go by the book. Some faculty facing a disciplinary or dismissal hearing will be placed on paid leave; others, where the case is both clearer and more serious, as these are, will be given unpaid leave.

Many of the comments above criticized the fact that two of the faculty continue to receive paychecks. But it is important to distinguish between salary, which they are not being paid, and accrued benefits to which they have a legal entitlement, which they are using up. The CEO of a company might be outraged to discover that he had to follow proper procedures to fire a serial killer, and we all might be a little peeved that the killer could take his 401k with him. But that mean that we should jettison procedure. Count on UW to do the right thing, but counting on universities to move quickly is usually a bad bet.

In the case of the convicted predators, wouldn’t a hasty decision, one their lawyers could challenge in court, be the worst thing that could happen?

madprof, at 6:54 pm EDT on August 25, 2005