|
Post by fodsat on Dec 4, 2012 11:25:37 GMT -5
Venkatesh is a fraud. We all know it. Only the most intellectually shallow among us say otherwise.
Security Check: point-blank
|
|
|
Post by premature on Dec 4, 2012 12:20:08 GMT -5
The previous comment is premature, IMO. I think we can make the judgement of "where there is smoke, there is fire." But more needs to be explained and revealed under this cloud of suspicion. This kind of issue, of course, means that greater scrutiny may be directed at this scholar, and it may be used against him when he is in competition for funds or positions. These are the consequences of reputational impacts.
However, I also think that "presumed innocent" applies as well. Violations of ethics are serious and can end careers. In this case, we need to be thinking of the legal standard here. No formal charge has been made as of yet, so it is premature to use words like "fraud."
|
|
|
Post by drbearjew on Dec 4, 2012 12:22:58 GMT -5
I didn't think it was allowable on this forum to insult or write disparaging comments about specific persons.
|
|
anon
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by anon on Dec 4, 2012 12:33:56 GMT -5
What a dick: he actually bad-mouths sociology in his response statement to the NYTimes. Nice one. To me, sociology's public persona suffers not so much from its "stuffiness" as from the fact that the public takes us to be arrogant blowhards who use academia as a platform for making blanket statements on hot button topics without any empirical backing. Where does the public get that impression, I wonder...
|
|
|
Post by nothxbye on Dec 4, 2012 13:16:54 GMT -5
I didn't think it was allowable on this forum to insult or write disparaging comments about specific persons. Go back to work, Shamus.
|
|
|
Post by good one on Dec 4, 2012 13:39:51 GMT -5
I didn't think it was allowable on this forum to insult or write disparaging comments about specific persons. Go back to work, Shamus. +1 I think that since this was written in the New York Times, as long as nothing slanderous is written, it should be fair game.
|
|
|
Post by drbearjew on Dec 4, 2012 13:46:28 GMT -5
Point is the posts about a specific person have become slanderous.
|
|
|
Post by premature on Dec 4, 2012 14:38:46 GMT -5
If the charges of fraud are true, then it is not slander. My point is that we don't, so it is premature to make that kind of charge. It could be slanderous, if it is untrue.
|
|
|
Post by schadenfreude on Dec 4, 2012 14:43:54 GMT -5
From his Bwog response: "My discipline is stuffy and losing relevance daily in the academic and public eye."
Not that his response addresses the actual claims made in the NYT article, but he makes an excellent point, no?
|
|
|
Post by drbearjew on Dec 4, 2012 14:55:44 GMT -5
If the charges of fraud are true, then it is not slander. My point is that we don't, so it is premature to make that kind of charge. It could be slanderous, if it is untrue. He is called a fraud. He is called a dick. Those are personal. Naming names here is typically a no-no in any situation (good or bad). But this thread is moving way beyond just naming names.
|
|
|
Post by premature on Dec 4, 2012 15:05:46 GMT -5
If you look at my post above, I am saying that we should refrain from saying that he is a fraud. We just don't know.
But...he could be a fraud. I personally don't think that is the case, BTW. That said, academics have the right, indeed must have the right, to make this charge. The integrity of our discipline hinges on making sure that fraud does not impact our research and teaching.
It is not a charge to make lightly, however. So, in effect, I do agree that we should not attach this label to him. Perhaps we could discuss this as a case of "possible fraud."
BTW, don't confuse personal name calling with academic procedures and professional ethics. Labeling someone as having violated professional ethics or engaging in academic fraud is not personal at all. These are scholarly/university categories.
|
|
|
Post by drbearjew on Dec 4, 2012 15:13:40 GMT -5
"He is a fraud"
"He committed fraud"
Two fundamentally different statements. One is an attribute of an essence of character.
Another refers to a specific action.
|
|
|
Post by okay on Dec 4, 2012 16:15:56 GMT -5
I think it is okay to comment in this case...what we are talking about is very different from badmouthing a specific candidate who is currently looking for a job on the market, which is where the rule of not naming individuals comes from.
This case is already public by virtue of the fact that it is unfolding in the new york times. Also, Vanketesh attacked sociology as a discipline publicly, claiming that his work was better by virtue of not being sociological. I think that invites public speculation about whether or not his work is actually better. Third, nothing said here is likely to impact vanketesh since his reputation is established and predominantly being defined and debated elsewhere, which may not be true for a relatively unknown job market candidate.
|
|
|
Post by ElDuderino on Dec 4, 2012 17:36:59 GMT -5
The rule about naming names here has an exception about things that are in the public record. The professor named here and the issues related to his work are being covered by the New York Times and other media.
And as far as slander is concerned, the law is actually different from what some people here seem to think. Calling someone a fraud or a dick is not actually slander. Saying that someone committed fraud, on the other hand, is actionable.
Of course, I wish people would be civil and all of that, but I am not going to police language in a case that is being covered by the New York Times. If you disagree with this decision, feel free to discuss it in the metaforum. I am always open to suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by happiness on Dec 5, 2012 16:17:00 GMT -5
This thread makes me feel so much more positive about sociologists than I normally do. Seriously.
|
|