Melissa Click, Missouri professor filmed asking for 'muscle,' is fired

[Max E.]

If the situation is as you describe it, I agree, she committed an offense that can not be tolerated on a university campus. In that case however the University should initiate her dismissal, with the concurrence of the State Universities Regulating body.

Surely you have seen the video at this point, sorry to say piezoe, but insiders like you at university's, are the problem.

Its very cut and dry, she threatened a student, tried to get people to rough him up, all for the sin of doing his job as a student journalist. The fact that you think she deserves to have multiple beuarecratic boards hear her case when its this cut and dry, is a text book example of why our school system, and universities are falling apart.

There is no one in the private sector who would have lasted a day at their job after that nonsense, yet you think that this woman still deserves to keep her job. The fact that something this cut and dry required a comittee in order to fire her shows just how perverse the public sector, universities, and schools have become, it should be automatic.

 

[gwb-trading]

Surely you have seen the video at this point, sorry to say piezoe, but insiders like you at university's, are the problem.

Its very cut and dry, she threatened a student, tried to get people to beat him up, the fact that you think she deserves to have multiple beuarecratic boards hear her case when its this cut and dry, is a text book example of why our school system, and universities are falling apart.

There is no one in the private sector who would have lasted a day at their job after that nonsense, yet you think that this woman still deserves to keep her job.

I will tell you how this will play out...

She is allowed to appeal her firing to the Board of Curators (the same board that voted to fire her). It is likely that her appeal will lead to the same decision and she will not be re-hired.

At this point her lawyers will launch legal action against the university over her firing. At this point the university has a choice either to settle financially (to avoid a large legal bill) or to fight the suit in the interests of justice (and workplace action precedence).

 

[piezoe]

Surely you have seen the video at this point, sorry to say piezoe, but insiders like you at university's, are the problem.

Its very cut and dry, she threatened a student, tried to get people to rough him up, all for the sin of doing his job as a student journalist. The fact that you think she deserves to have multiple beuarecratic boards hear her case when its this cut and dry, is a text book example of why our school system, and universities are falling apart.

There is no one in the private sector who would have lasted a day at their job after that nonsense, yet you think that this woman still deserves to keep her job. The fact that something this cut and dry required a comittee in order to fire her shows just how perverse the public sector, universities, and schools have become, it should be automatic.

please refresh and see my last edited response to gwb. We disagree on how universities should be run, but probably not on the firing of this faulty, which sounds from what I am hearing to have been justified. But the firing must not be before a fair, two-sided hearing. To not do that would be to follow the 'business model', which I maintain is a very bad model for a University to follow if we want the best return possible for our education dollars. That is probably where we have a strong disagreement.

 

[Max E.]

I will tell you how this will play out...

She is allowed to appeal her firing to the Board of Curators (the same board that voted to fire her). It is likely that her appeal will lead to the same decision and she will not be re-hired.

At this point her lawyers will launch legal action against the university over her firing. At this point the university has a choice either to settle financially (to avoid a large legal bill) or to fight the suit in the interests of justice (and workplace action precedence).

Yeah i agree, we havent heard the last of this woman, thats why i was shocked they were even able to fire her to begin with, no doubt she will figure out a way to weasel back into the system, people dont let 6 figure salaries based on three day work weeks, go very easily.

Its disgusting that we allow this kind of nonsense to go on while taxpayers fund these people. And people like Bernie Sanders want us to just keep throwing more money at them, no questions asked. Like seriously Mizzou is so effed up that 2 people actually voted to keep that woman on after that incident.

 

[Max E.]

To not do that would be to follow the 'business model', which I maintain is a very bad model for a University to follow if we want the best return possible for our education dollars.

Can you please explain to me why you think the "Business model" would be such a colossal disaster in your eyes? Seems to me that if people coming out of certain universities end up graduating and being highly unqualified for the private sector, the universities, or the professors teaching those kids should go out of business.

Why shouldnt the normal laws of supply and demand be allowed to take effect in the universities?

 

[piezoe]

I will tell you how this will play out...

She is allowed to appeal her firing to the Board of Curators (the same board that voted to fire her). It is likely that her appeal will lead to the same decision and she will not be re-hired.

At this point her lawyers will launch legal action against the university over her firing. At this point the university has a choice either to settle financially (to avoid a large legal bill) or to fight the suit in the interests of justice (and workplace action precedence).

This is one of the reasons, but not the only one, why there should always be a two-sided hearing before these actions are taken. The structure of these public institutions does invite lawsuits that would not be brought in the case of a business firing, and that is just one reason why a fair hearing is necessary. It makes it harder for her to prevail in a subsequent suit. If everything happened, as is being described to me here, she would be ill advised to sue. She might try to pull the wool over a jury's eyes, but if she is in the wrong she's got an uphill battle. The major universities typically have very capable legal counsel.

By the way Political interference in universities invites law suits, and those are the kinds often won by the plaintiffs.

 

[piezoe]

Can you please explain to me why you think the "Business model" would be such a colossal disaster in your eyes? Seems to me that if people coming out of certain universities end up graduating and being highly unqualified for the private sector, the universities, or the professors teaching those kids should go out of business.

Why shouldnt the normal laws of supply and demand be allowed to take effect in the universities?

I'd really like to engage you on that question, but I'll be dead too soon to be able to complete my answer. There are books on this topic. I'll see if I can get you one or two good references.

 

[Max E.]

So what you are saying is that we need the board, because the board has created a system that is so fucked up its almost impossible to fire people. So we need them to clean up the mess they created.

How bout we fire the entire board, (so we wont need them anymore) then we can fire whoever we want to, and specifically fire people like this professor without a fight.

This is one of the reasons, but not the only one, why there should always be a two-sided hearing before these actions are taken. The structure of these public institutions does invite lawsuits that would not be brought in the case of a business firing, and that is just one reason why a fair hearing is necessary. It makes it harder for her to prevail in a subsequent suit. If everything happened, as is being described to me here, she would be ill advised to sue. She might try to pull the wool over a jury's eyes, but if she is in the wrong she's got an uphill battle. The major universities typically have very capable legal counsel.

By the way Political interference in universities invites law suits, and those are the kinds often won by the plaintiffs.

 

[gwb-trading]

So what you are saying is that we need the board, because the board has created a system that is so fucked up its almost impossible to fire people. So we need them to clean up the mess they created.

How bout we fire the entire board, (so we wont need them anymore) then we can fire whoever we want to, and specifically fire people like this professor without a fight.

The Board of Curators (or Board of Governors or Board of Trustees) are usually political appointees provided with long terms in the office. Most of these people are academics (who came up through administration) or leading business people - rarely are these appointees politicians. Usually most governance boards of public universities are politically independent.

The system for firing professors in a university system is very complex (due to tenure, academic rights, etc.) but the Board did not create this system. The State Government created these complex systems to protect professors' rights when the state universities were founded - only the state legislature can alter the system, not the governance board.

"Firing" the governance board is not realistic, nor will it change anything.

 

[Max E.]

The Board of Curators (or Board of Governors or Board of Trustees) are usually political appointees provided with long terms in the office. Most of these people are academics (who came up through administration) or leading business people - rarely are these appointees politicians. Usually most governance boards of public universities are politically independent.

The system for firing professors in a university system is very complex (due to tenure, academic rights, etc.) but the Board did not create this system. The State Government created these complex systems to protect professors' rights when the state universities were founded - only the state legislature can alter the system, not the governance board.

"Firing" the governance board is not realistic, nor will it change anything.

Thx for the explanation, it clarifies alot of this for me.

I guess what frustrates me is that it all seems like a bunch of bureaucrats setting up bureaucracys in order to protect themselves. We as tax payers hold the keys to the kingdom, so why do we allow them to bend us over like this? Why do we accept the complete lack of accountability?

Is there any legitimate, non self serving benefit to these people being set up like this? Anything that benefits your average student by making these people unfireable?