Opinion

Herald editorial board rushes to conclusion

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Related stories:

• Editorial Board endorses Eagon...by video! (April 6, 2009)
• Setting the record straight (March 7, 2005)
• Board misses point (December 1, 2006)
• Herald editorial board mischaracterizes UC position (November 8, 2001)
• Herald unleashed childish attack on Kumar (December 8, 2005)

Also by Letters to the Editor:

• Clegg absurd, biased on CFACT (May 5, 2009)
• Fund peer tutors (April 28, 2009)
• UW policy consistent with nation (April 23, 2009)
• Biddy's initiative not worth it (April 20, 2009)
• A plan for better advising (April 20, 2009)

Sharing tools:

E-mail this article:

Your e-mail address:

Recipient e-mail address:

Optional message:

Share on:

• Facebook
• Digg
• Newsvine
• reddit
• StumbleUpon
• delicious
• Google
• Yahoo! My Web
• BlogMarks
• Linkroll
• Simpy

• Spurl
• Connotea
• Fark
• Feed Me Links

• Magnolia
• BlinkList
• Sphere
• LinkedIn

• Furl
• Technorati
• AddToAny
• Permalink

I urge The Badger Herald Editorial Board members to re-read the termination proposal they wrote about Feb. 15. Even a cursory reading reveals that the policy easily could be used to circumvent the constitutional rights of faculty.

Your editorial, like the proposal itself, represents a rush to judgment in response to political posturing that creates the perception that the UW System is wasting tremendous amounts of money by paying criminals. If the policy is adopted, the System will be spending a lot more money settling lawsuits for such offenses as unlawful termination and depriving persons of their civil rights.

Re-read the policy and ask yourself: As a student, would I want to be expelled from the university if someone came forward with "credible information" that I had committed a serious crime? You would not have to be convicted in a court of law or even charged with a crime if you were subject to this policy. You could simply be dismissed based on an investigation by someone whose qualifications are not even spelled out in the policy.

As a student, you might not pay a tremendously high price — that is, if you don't mind moving to another state and starting your college career again. For a professor, such a dismissal would be the end of a career. Professors typically follow 10 years of higher education with seven years of full-time teaching to reach tenure. The proposal could wipe that 17-year effort out based on nothing more than an allegation.

The System's policy might be flawed, but the proposal, if adopted, would make matters worse, not better.

Arthur L. Ranney, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Communication Technologies University of Wisconsin-Platteville