Search News


Browse Archives

News

Professors Behind Bars

August 11, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The summer of 2005 has been an embarrassing one at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

First, the university came under fire when it was revealed that Paul W. Barrows, the vice chancellor for student affairs who quit last year, did so because he had had an affair with a graduate student. That Barrows stayed on the university's payroll infuriated legislators, and focused attention on how the university treats employees who get into trouble.

Now some lawmakers have shifted their attention to professors -- three of whom remain employees even though they are either in jail or headed there.

On Friday, Roberto Coronado, a professor of physiology at Madison, was sentenced to eight years in prison after he entered a plea of no contest on three felony counts of repeated sexual contact with a child. While the university is seeking to dismiss Coronado, he is appealing that decision and remains an employee, even though his incarceration prevents him from being on campus.

Because he has unused vacation time, he is currently receiving his salary -- $137,641 -- and will continue to do so until he uses up his vacation time, at which point he will be on an unpaid leave, pending the outcome of his appeals of his dismissal.

Scott Suder, a state representative, on Tuesday called for Coronado to be dismissed immediately. In a letter sent to Chancellor John D. Wiley, he questioned the university's "track record" in dealing with employees. In a statement, Suder noted that Coronado's victims were girls between the ages of 5 and 9, and said, "For the sake of the innocent victims who fell prey to this predator, the university should take immediate action and clearly outline the steps it will take to remove him from the university’s payroll."

The university says it is doing just that, but that due process doesn't disappear because a professor's crime is particularly vile. "The appeal process -- which includes constitutional guarantees of due process -- is under way," said a statement from the university.

The other cases involve Lewis Keith Cohen, who has been sentenced to 30 days in jail for exposing a child to harmful material, and Steven Clark, a human oncology professor serving a one-year jail term for felony stalking. Cohen and Clark are both being reviewed for possible dismissal under Wisconsin's regulations for firing professors.

But Clark, whose salary is $67,761, continues to be paid his vacation time. Cohen -- who has not yet started to serve his sentence and who did not respond to a request for comment -- works on a nine-month contract and so is not paid in the summer. His salary is $72,856. If he returns for the fall semester, he would be paid, but if he is forced to miss work for jail, he would be put on leave without pay.

Faculty members who are involved in reviewing these cases take them very seriously, said James S. Donnelly Jr., a professor of history and a member of the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities. Donnelly stressed that he could comment only on general approaches to such cases because his committee may be involved in dealing with some of the professors whose cases are in the news.

He said that when a faculty member is convicted in a court of law of a crime of "moral turpitude," it is normal for administrators to seek the committee's approval for a dismissal. "In such a case the concern that I or any other member of the Madison faculty in good standing would have is a double one: Is there clear and convincing evidence of moral turpitude, and have the legally required university procedures for dismissal been carefully followed?"

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Professors Behind Bars

  • Most Lame Story Ever
  • Posted by Jason on August 11, 2005 at 12:01pm EDT
  • 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.

  • Posted by Richard Williams on August 11, 2005 at 12:05pm EDT
  • Is anyone really all that suprized? I think everyone is just jealous that the university is helping them, where most employers would turn their backs. They are some lucky professors.

  • Posted by richard on August 11, 2005 at 1:33pm EDT
  • 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.

  • NOT lame
  • Posted by Bob on August 11, 2005 at 2:24pm EDT
  • An IT co-worker just got convicted of child-rape. When his leave time ran out -- he was terminated for non-performance.

    For reasons that I cannot fathom, academics think they are entitled to be above the laws and rules that Jane Q. Public has to obey. That is delusional and requires severe remediation.

  • Tell ya what...
  • Posted by Drew B. at UW-Madison on August 11, 2005 at 3:00pm EDT
  • 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.

  • Bukk
  • Posted by Bart on August 11, 2005 at 3:00pm EDT
  • Here the issue is far more then some brick layer, office drone or auto worker. This is a TEACHER. Parents spend all their wealth to insure a future for their kid via education. Teachers hired to impart this are not hired to mingle their genetic material with the student. That action is totally reprehensible. In a more civilized era that teacher would be horsewhipped.

  • Posted by Bill on August 11, 2005 at 8:11pm EDT
  • 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!

  • This is a bunch of bunk!
  • Posted by Chris Mooney on August 12, 2005 at 4:40am EDT
  • Want to get these matters resolved quickly and effectively? Terminate the professors for their inability to obey the law (which I daresay would apply in spades considering that all of the professors noted above have been convicted of a crime involving the endangerment of another person) and simply write a check to pay off the balance of their remaining time due. The university will have washed it's hands of the offending professor, and the former professor won't be able to waste more taxpayer money by filing a suit for unpaid wages.
    As to the "moral turpitude" bit, I don't feel that any of them has a credible defense to back them up should they choose to fight this little two-word measuring stick. Misconduct is misconduct and if you don't have the "moral character" to resist your "turpituditious impulses", then you should be "FIRED".

  • Posted by Larry on August 12, 2005 at 10:47am EDT
  • 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.

  • Shocking ignorance
  • Posted by Bart S. , Graduate Teaching Assistant at Big Sports U on August 19, 2005 at 7:16am EDT
  • "While it may be unethical for a 40-year-old to have sex with a student, there is nothing illegal .."

    Gee, Lar, I guess I can ignore the university rule against teaching staff not dating students under their direct care.

    What a yutz ..

  • Posted by madprof on August 25, 2005 at 6:54pm EDT
  • 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?