Professor sues University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

So. We have one head of a department [a man] fired and an underling of the same department [a woman] granted tenure.

Any bets as to who the new department head will be? After a suitable interval, of course...

Imagine -- the effrontery of a man naming a woman as the basis of a lawsuit against a University, especially for "fudging" on her resume, staying away from class, and claiming she diddled a student. [As we all know, women do NOT lie, they sometimes have "headaches", and never diddle students].

For those who think this post sexist, I quote from the above, "...the committee did not disagree that some of Dr. Welsh’s claims of publications were false..." Translation: They found out she lied. The committee then promptly passed the blame for Dr Walsh's false claims from her to Dr Harman.

Neither the committee nor anyone else in authority at UT has commented on Dr Walsh's other [to be gracious] "peccadillos". Now THAT is sexism rampant...

It seems to be OK for women to diddle around but NOT for men. Bit of a double standard, that, to say the least.

Excellent reporting; full and complete. Kudos to Ms Garrett for this story.

Rolando:

From your comments, it is clear that you have a big chip on your shoulder about something; I found your comments to be both sexist and naive. Making allegations in a lawsuit does not mean that they are true. Frivolous lawsuits are filed all of the time. As the article pointed out, "Dr. Harman’s concerns could have been addressed internally. In his 40 years at the university, Dr. Campa said he has not seen these types of allegations brought against a faculty member."

Methinks there is more here than meets the eye. It seems that you are not the only one with a chip on your shoulder.

If a student misrepresents work they are tossed out of the school no matter the reason. A teachers integrity is their responsibility, if she claims she was never taught this I would believe that a lie. UNY is a prestigious school with an excellent reputation for producing quality professionals. In all her education, on her what to a PhD, is it really plausible to believe she was never taught the correct form for showing her published work?

It'll be interesting to see what happens (if anything) internally at UTC, where it appears (based on this article) that a whistle-blower was demoted and the wrongdoer promoted. The entire incident--but especially the way the misrepresentations on the female professor's CV were handled--smacks of patronizing sexism. The committee, as well as Dean Burhenn, treated her like a (ditzy) woman who couldn't possibly be held to the same standards demanded of (even the dopiest) male graduate student. And what about the excuse that she didn't learn how to cite publications because she attended school in Germany? Are we supposed to believe that German professors are taught to inflate their publication records on their job resumes? Come on!

My best guess is that Dr. Welsh simply labeled this section of her CV incorrectly. Instead of placing the articles or books or whatever under a heading of "works in progress," she put them under a "forthcoming" heading. This happens a lot in academia, especially on the CVs of newly-minted Ph.D. students. I can say from experience (although my Ph.D. is not in philosophy) that I learned many, many things during my time in graduate school--but how to write a CV was not one of those things.

I expect most women see it that way, Dr Surratt [any relation?] Couldn't be helped -- not and still say what needed said...much as Dr. Harman did.

But you may rest assured the post was neither sexist in intent nor naive. It merely points out the anti-male attitudes so prevalent at all levels of academia today...and most everywhere else, for that matter. Unfortunately, the sexism pendulum has swung to the other extreme instead of stopping in the middle.

But it still remains...there are few areas where a woman is a man's equal -- AND VICE VERSA. [Please forgive the shouting...it was for emphasis for other readers. It is human nature to be blind to and skip over that necessary corollary, you see.]

Admittedly, after 40-odd years of federal service at the mid-level I have become a bit cynical [more than a bit, actually. Then again, that is enough to boost most anyone over the top]. I have seen most all of it; although I must say academia could sometimes give a few lessons in back-stabbery to the InnerBeltwayHangers-on.

Oh yes, Dr Surratt...according to the article, Dr Harman DID try to solve this problem internally; he filed a complete report with the committee. They, in turn, decided to squelch a report critical of Dr Welsh [a woman]. This prompted a concerned senior professor [a man] to "go public", as it were, after being fired.

Or did I misread it?

I can't believe myself, I agree with Rolando. I often wonder why "professional" men and women refuse to take responsibility for their actions or decisions. Instead they make every excuse or blame it on someone else instead of simply saying I made a mistake what do we do to correct it. Remember no human is perfect, so why do so many in society think that they are. Good luck and best wishes to Dr. Harman and Dr. Welsh maybe there is a lesson learned in this situation that they have the opportunity to pass on to their students (the reason they have a job to begin with ).

During my time as an undergrad at UTC, I picked up on the tension between Dr. Harman and Dr. Welsh. I never worked with Dr. Harman much, just needed him to sign off on some classes as the Department Head. Dr. Welsh, however, was a great professor and advisor. I think I had four classes with her, and she was always brilliant. Her classes were always engaging and quite a bit of fun as well. I'm quite inclined to believe that a woman of her capabilities would have no reason to falsify publications. I'm still waiting on publication of a chapter I wrote for a book six years ago and it has been delayed because of the publisher. I hardly see why I should fail to take credit for a work that I've been assured will be published, as soon as the publishers get their act together and produce the book. That is, I know how frustrating publishing in academia can sometimes be and forthcoming work may be forthcoming for quite a while. As the article mentioned, she did part of her Ph.D. in Germany. While some have balked at this fact, I think it is quite important. I have worked in several writing centers and spent a lot of time learning and re-learning the MLA guidelines for documenting publications like this. The guidelines are continually being updated and improved, and even as a semi-professional in the field, I am still unsure that all of my work is correct. Think about this problem as it relates to various "official governing bodies" across academia in multiple countries and multiple languages. I'm sure it would be difficult for anyone in the situation, and I can find no fault on the part of Dr. Welsh for what is basically a trivial error. From my humble perspective, Dr. Harman's grudge with Dr. Welsh was on a personal level. He always seemed put-off by the younger faculty like Dr. Welsh, as well as others. I say, if the position of department head is open, give it to Dr. John Phillips. He would do more for the department than Dr. Harman could. And just one more thing. During my time, the topic of student-professor relations came up on a few occasions, mostly because there were a lot of younger professors on staff in many departments. The topic came up regarding both male professors as well as female, with no distinction made as to one being any more ethical than the other. As I recall, so long as the student is 18, which most college freshmen are, the university has no problem with the relationship. From an ethical standard, it is the responsibility of both parties to ensure that, if the student is in a professor's class with whom said student is in the relationship, a different professor in the department is responsible for grading that student's work in that class. If the university policy doesn't bar students and professors from having relationships, then Dr. Harman's complaint has no ground to stand on. I would think the head of a philosophy department would be a little better at forming a logical argument than he has shown himself to be.

I am horrified and disgusted that the Chattanooga Times Free Press would print this article knowing little to nothing about the situation and clearly taking Harmon's side. As someone who actually knows what is going on I can say with some authority that his removal as head had nothing to do with Dr Welsh and everything to do with his erratic, unprofessional behavior that made working in his Department unsafe, unfriendly, and ultimately untenable. Dr Harmon used his unsupported, unproven enmity towards Dr Welsh as an excuse to hide his own paranoia and frankly his unsuitability for a leadership role. That Dr Welsh got dragged into this, and that this paper could report this nonsense as fact is shocking.
The fact that there was no basis to his allegations did not stop the school from holding a fair and balanced review at which Dr Welsh was found innocent of all charges. Dr Harmon is clearly upset that his lies were discovered and this article will only help him feel even more justified in his paranoia. Ultimately he was removed legally as per the rules of the college. I know that it is not typical for a local paper to present a fair and balanced record of events, but the inaccuracy of this article is so shocking that I am surprised that it made press at all. I believe Dr Welsh is owed an apology and a front page retraction Shame on you Chattanooga Free Times Press. Shame on you.

Attacking the paper and the reporter, who, by the way, did an admirable job of checking additional sources to verify the allegations, is silly. Dr. Welsh refused to comment on the lawsuit, and Dean Burhenn, who was interviewed, evidently had little to say in Welsh's defense. The UTC committee itself provided the most damning case against Welsh in suggesting that her explanation for falsifying her resume was somewhat less than credible. Why is it "shameful" to expose what appears to be a cover-up of a professor's unethical behavior? Students, as a previous commentator pointed out, are routinely hauled into Honor Court and sometimes even kicked out of school when caught plagiarizing even a sentence or two. Surely professors should be held to an equally high standard when it comes to fabricating information, particularly when the false or misleading material is used to obtain taxpayer-funded pay raises, promotions and lifetime jobs at a state-supported institution. Which brings up an ironic twist: Dr. Welsh evidently teaches an ethics course in the Dept. of Philosophy and Religious Studies at UTC. Wonder what ethics theories justify having "an extramarital affair with an undergraduate student" or padding one's resume....

Thestig62 -- A couple points

Others state a contract of some sort is in order before claiming "forthcoming". Six years is hardly "forthcoming" -- "expected" or "anticipated" would, IMO, be a better choice sans contract.

Setting aside the "absence" issue, other than misrepresenting herself [an ethical issue], Dr Walsh apparently had an extramarital sexual affair with a student [a moral issue]. You shrug this off as being between two consenting adults; it is much more than that. You touched on the real issue -- favoritism, real or perceived.

Early on, any academy worth its salt will present a lesson on professional ethics, stressing the value of high personal ethics. The phrase, "Avoid not only wrongdoing but the appearance of wrongdoing" takes on new meaning -- or it should.

But that is all so yesterday, isn't it? To quote The Bard, "Ay, there's the rub."

thatguy -- Yeah, politics does make strange bedfellows, doesn't it. In my experience, even the most polarized of opponents have SOME point of agreement.

Rolando:

Let me respond to your 12:52 posting by making an analogy: you and I are co-workers. I go to our supervisor and say that you are cheating on your time sheet. The supervisor says "Ok, Mary, let's kick this up the chain of command." An investigation follows which exonerates you. Then I can't let it go--I can't accept the investigators' decision. I write a 200-page report about how horrible you are as a co-worker and I file a lawsuit accusing you of defrauding the taxpayers, among other things (let's say that we work at the post office). The local rag writes a story which is very unflattering to you and reports that not only did I charge you with fraud, I allege that you beat your daughter. The post office has told you not to respond to any press inquiries because that's what the post office's lawyers have advised. You have never beaten your daughter, but you cannot say so in public. Your hard-earned reputation as a respectable postal worker is now fodder for local debate.

Let's not cast stones until the final "verdict" is in.

Dr Surratt -- Please forgive the delayed response.

Your analogy is not complete but I will assume for the sake of the discussion that you have absolute proof I am falsifying my time card and doing other nasty things but I am still exonerated; there are a few reasons that could happen, among them... 1) I had a valid expectation of privacy and you violated it to gather your proof [making it invalid for use. Or maybe that's criminal law...] or 2) the fix was in. And of course, 3) it wasn't fraudulent at all...it merely appeared that way to you.

I understand your points and agree with them to a degree. Reputations, such as you and I have as two hypothetical postal workers, are tenuous things and not easily repaired, if at all. A counter lawsuit with damages against you would follow a loss of your suit as surely as day follows night. As Paul Harvey said, "Now for the rest of the story". [As an aside and although completely different, I cannot help but think of the Duke University LaCross players and their reputations. Many similarities, perhaps.]

[Back to real life] The committee's findings as reported were particularly damning against Dr Welsh, not only in what they said but for what they left unsaid. All in all, with the info available, IMO it was poorly handled.

[The analogy] Here is where your analogy fails -- you sue not me but the Post Office after they fire you for some vague, perhaps manufactured reason with which you, with good reason, do not agree. The local "rag" picks up on the suit and a reporter writes it up -- doing a bit of [foot]work gathering the information [to ensure accuracy -- lawsuits, you know]. But newspaper stories, especially online ones, must be relatively short -- space is valuable -- and it is often condensed.

[Real life] I just read the meat of the real lawsuit and the University's rebuttal. IMO, a good lawyer would not press the suit without some sort of proof supporting Dr Harman's rather unusual allegations and that his/her client was, at least in part, truthful and straightforward. He left out everything but sexism [on the part of the University].

Having been the subject of an unflattering LA Times Sunday supplement write-up, I can identify with damages done by shoddy or careless reporting -- even while recognizing that as the subject, things look different.

This is a perfect example of why unbiased reporting is so important. Not just in Presidential affairs but in the everyday things as well.

Finally, I think it appropriate for these matters to become public. Perhaps not in such fine detail but governmental dealings must be visible to the public. In any case, I await the outcome...

It just occurred to me [blame it on senior memory] Mary was her first name, too. Hm-m-m. Appropriate, perhaps? There are two views on that topic, too. What was done to her was IMO unlawful.

In response to jrobninson - Attacking the reporter is not silly since she did not do a very good of checking her facts and checking facts means more than simply taking Harmon's word for it. For example Harmon began his allegations against Dr Welsh AFTER he was asked to step down. Looking at the official record would have shown that. He has done an excellent job of changing the conversation. Instead of people asking what it was that he did to be asked to step down they are focusing on an issue that had nothing to do with anything. The committee was formed because it was right to look into his allegations once they were officially made. But Dr Welsh has an exemplary record of scholarship and teaching. As to the resume issue, as another scholar pointed out, to have items listed on your resume as forthcoming for a long time is perfectly normal. I had an article accepted for an edited text thus listed it on my resume under "forthcoming". It took four years for that book to finally hit the shelves. Does that make me a liar? Of course not. Harmon wanted to accuse Welsh of something so he picked this issue. I think the University and Dr Welsh are right to not comment on this matter. Getting involved in Harmon's paranoia and allowing themselves to get dragged into a public argument of he said she said would not help anyone, except Harmon himself.
With the wonderful world of the Internet we can argue this back and forth and then move onto something else. But remember that this is Dr Welsh's career not some diverting new story. Once our attention is elsewhere she will still be forced to walk around covered in mud.

I agree with thestig62that this should not have gone public. It is a tactless move on the part of Dr. Harman to have gone to the paper when he should have taken other measures to abate this situation. Perhaps one that does not involve the CTFP, or anything like it. It's childish to scamper off to tell anyone who is willing to listen about every little skirmish that takes place just to win some ill begotten support. This article is resembles something that one reads in the tabloids. So, now that the story is out, everyone gets to pitch in on damage control. The shame that is...

In one of the comments there seems to be a concern that Dr. Harman has somehow sullied Dr. Welsh’s reputation due to his lack of support for her tenure and his lawsuit to the university. However, it seems to me that it is Dr. Welsh who is responsible for any damage to her reputation. If I steal from you and you catch me and I end up serving time in jail, is it your fault I am in jail because you caught me? Or is it my fault because I stole in the first place? The story states that Dr. Harman supplied a 200 page report on Dr. Welsh’s academic publications, reviews, and applications. So it sounds as if there is some documentation to back up his concerns. In the article neither Dr. Welsh nor Dean Burhenn disagreed with Dr. Harman’s claims. In fact, the Committee convened by the Provost stated there were “inaccuracies in documentation of scholarly activities” by Dr. Welsh, but said it was because she didn’t “know better”. Either she purposely submitted fraudulent credentials to further her career, or after an accredited doctoral program and 7 years as a professor she still doesn’t know how to document basic academic work. Either way it seems she didn’t deserve tenure.

i am a philosophy and religion mayor and am aquainted with both parties. i have a tremendous respect for dr. harman and found his classes to be exceptional. i am also taking a class from dr. welsh and even thou it is effident that she is an intellectual her teaching abilities lack that a certain wow. as an advisor, dr. harmon has been very enlightening,i have always respected and valued his opinion and i find that his demotion is a loss for the philosophy and religion department.